I’ll have more on this as it develops (updated twice since the original report now), but for the short term, it appears that a non-visible light irradiance effect on Earth’s cloud seeds has been confirmed. The way it is posited to work is that the effect of cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic variations which either allow more or deflect more cosmic rays) creates cloud condensation nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. With more condensation nuclei, more clouds form and vice-versa. Clouds have significant effects on TSI at the surface.

Even the IPCC has admitted this in their latest (2007) report:

“Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor”.

Update: From the Nature article, Kirkby is a bit more muted in his assessment than the GWPF:

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

Long-anticipated results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva appear in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature (25 August). The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change (see my 17 July post below). The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.

Willy-nilly the results speak for themselves, and it’s no wonder the Director General was fretful.

Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his 62 co-authors, from 17 institutes in Europe and the USA, announce big effects of pions from an accelerator, which simulate the cosmic rays and ionize the air in the experimental chamber. The pions strongly promote the formation of clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – aerosols of the kind that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei on which cloud droplets form. What’s more, there’s a very important clarification of the chemistry involved.

A breach of etiquette

My interest in CLOUD goes back nearly 14 years, to a lecture I gave at CERN about Svensmark’s discovery of the link between cosmic rays and cloudiness. It piqued Kirkby’s curiosity, and both Svensmark and I were among those who helped him to prepare his proposal for CLOUD.

By an unpleasant irony, the only Svensmark contribution acknowledged in theNature report is the 1997 paper (Svensmark and Friis-Christensen) on which I based my CERN lecture. There’s no mention of the successful experiments in ion chemistry and molecular cluster formation by the Danish team in Copenhagen, Boulby and latterly in Aarhus where they beat CLOUD to the first results obtained using a particle beam (instead of gamma rays and natural cosmic rays) to ionize the air in the experimental chamber – see http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/

What will historians of science make of this breach of scientific etiquette? That Kirkby was cross because Svensmark, losing patience with the long delay in getting approval and funding for CLOUD, took matters into his own hands? Or because Svensmark’s candour about cosmic rays casting doubt on catastrophic man-made global warming frightened the national funding agencies? Or was Kirkby simply doing his best (despite the results) to obey his Director General by slighting all things Danish?

Personal rivalries aside, the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this:

“Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].”

It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post. Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings, the more detailed CERN result is excellent. Thanks a million, Jasper.

Enlightening chemistry

And in friendlier times we’d be sharing champagne for a fine discovery with CLOUD, that traces of ammonia can increase the production of the sulphuric clusters a thousandfold. It’s highlighted in the report’s title: “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation” and it was made possible by the more elaborate chemical analysis in the big-team set-up in Geneva. In essence, the ammonia helps to stabilize the molecular clusters.

Although not saying it openly, the CLOUD team implies a put-down for the Danes with this result, repeatedly declaring that without ammonia there’d be little cluster production at low altitudes. But although the Aarhus experimenters did indeed assume the simpler reaction (H2SO4 + H2O), differing results in successive experimental runs made them suspect that varying amounts of trace impurities were present in the air cylinders used to fill their chamber. Now it looks as if a key impurity may have been ammonia. But some members of the CLOUD consortium also favoured (H2SO4 + H2O) and early runs in Geneva used no intentional ammonia. So they’ve little reason to scoff.

In any case, whether the basic chemistry is (H2SO4 + H2O) or (H2SO4 + H2O + NH3) is an academic rather than a practical point. There are always traces of ammonia in the real air, and according to the CLOUD report you need only one molecule in 30 billion. If that helps to oil Svensmark’s climatic motor, it’s good to know, but it calls for no apologies and alters the climatic implications not a jot.

The experiment’s logo. The acronym “Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets” always implied strong interest in Svensmark’s hypothesis. And the roles of the Galaxy and the Sun are acknowledged.

Technically, CLOUD is a welcome advance on the Danish experiments. Not only is the chemistry wider ranging but molecular clusters as small as 1.7 nanometres in diameter are detectable, compared with 4 nm in Denmark. And the set-up enables the scientists to study the ion chemistry at lower temperatures, corresponding to increasing altitudes in the atmosphere. Cluster production soars as the temperature goes down, until “almost every negative ion gives rise to a new particle” [i.e. molecular cluster]. The lowest temperature reported in the paper is -25 oC. That corresponds to an altitude of 6000 metres, so unless you wish to visualize a rain of cloud-seeding aerosols from on high, it’s not very relevant to Svensmark’s interest in the lowest 3000 metres.

How the warmists built their dam

Shifting from my insider’s perspective on the CLOUD experiment, to see it on the broader canvas of the politicized climate science of the early 21st Century, the chief reaction becomes a weary sigh of relief. Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases.

In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise.

For the dam that was meant to ward off a growing stream of discoveries coming from the spring in Copenhagen, the foundation was laid on the day after the Danes first announced the link between cosmic rays and clouds at a space conference in Birmingham, England, in 1996. “Scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible,”Bert Bolin declared, as Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As several journalists misbehaved by reporting the story from Birmingham, the top priority was to tame the media. The first courses of masonry ensured that anything that Svensmark and his colleagues might say would be ignored or, failing that, be promptly rubbished by a warmist scientist. Posh papers like The Times of London and the New York Times, and posh TV channels like the BBC’s, readily fell into line. Enthusiastically warmist magazines like New Scientist and Scientific Americanneeded no coaching.

Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level. Starve Svensmark of funding. Reject his scientific papers but give free rein to anyone who criticizes him. Trivialize the findings in the Holy Writ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. None of this is paranoia on my part, but a matter of close personal observation since 1996.

“It’s the Sun, stupid!” The story isn’t really about a bunch of naughty Danish physicists. They are just spokesmen for the most luminous agent of climate change. As the Sun was what the warmists really wanted to tame with their dam, they couldn’t do it. And coming to the Danes’ aid, by briefly blasting away many cosmic rays with great puffs of gas, the Sun enabled the team to trace in detail the consequent reduction in cloud seeding and liquid water in clouds. See my posthttp://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/ By the way, that research also disposes of a morsel of doubt in the new CLOUD paper, about whether the small specks made by cosmic rays really grow sufficiently to seed cloud droplets.

As knowledge accumulated behind their dam and threatened to overtop it, the warmists had one last course to lay. Paradoxically it was CLOUD. Long delays with this experiment to explore the microchemical mechanism of the Svensmark effect became the chief excuse for deferring any re-evaluation of the Sun’s role in climate change. When the microchemical mechanism was revealed prematurely by the SKY experiment in Copenhagen and published in 2006, the warmists said, “No particle accelerator? That won’t do! Wait for CLOUD.” When the experiment in Aarhus confirmed the mechanism using a particle accelerator they said, “Oh that’s just the Danes again! Wait for CLOUD.”

Well they’ve waited and their dam has failed them.

Hall of Shame

Retracing those 14 years, what if physics had functioned as it is supposed to do? What if CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?

For a start there would have no surprise about the “travesty” that global warming has stopped since the mid-1990s, with the Sun becoming sulky. Vast sums might have been saved on misdirected research and technology, and on climate change fests and wheezes of every kind. The world’s poor and their fragile living environment could have had far more useful help than precautions against warming.

And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.

In this special video report for physicsworld.com CLOUD project leader Jasper Kirkby explains what his team is trying to achieve with its experiment. “We’re trying to understand what the connection is between a cosmic ray going through the atmosphere and the creation of so-called aerosol seeds – the seed for a cloud droplet or an ice particle,” Kirkby explains.

The CLOUD experiment recreates these cloud-forming processes by directing the beamline at CERN’s proton synchrotron into a stainless-steel chamber containing very pure air and selected trace gases.

One of the aims of the experiment is to discover details of cloud formation that could feed back into climate models. “Everybody agrees that clouds have a huge effect on the climate. But the understanding of how big that effect is is really very poorly known,” says Kirkby.

I had no idea Calder was so bitter over all this. I’d like to read some from a more disinterested source. Maybe Nature’s editors will have something worthwhile, err, well they won’t. Or perhaps, umm, they’re even worse.

Rather than quote the GWPF’s interpretation of the report, why not quote straight from Nature where it says “Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.”

REPLY: Because I didn’t see the Nature report until just a few minutes ago, as noted at the top, I’ll be adding more as it develops. The tendency here by those on the publci funding dole will be to reduce the impact of the study by saying there is no connection and/or that it needs further study. I’ll post both sides. – Anthony

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: ‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate….”

Wonderful article. The great benefits that will come from the work of this team and Svensmark include the fact that this is genuine science, conducted entirely within the standards of scientific method, that Svensmark and friends are really good explicators of their work for the common person, unlike everyone who is a “mainstream climate scientist,” and that the public will get to learn the difference between genuine science and what the MSM has passed off as science.

Also, there is the small matter of the politicians who jumped on the “global warming” bandwagon and the settled science who will now learn that the science wasn’t settled.

…”The pions strongly promote the formation of clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – aerosols of the kind that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei on which cloud droplets form. What’s more, there’s a very important clarification of the chemistry involved.”….

I wonder if this has implications for Venus with high levels of sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.

“We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate.”

“Although we have not yet duplicated the concentrations or complexities of atmospheric organic vapours, we find that ion enhancement of nucleation occurs for all temperatures, humidities and cluster compositions observed so far. Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere. However, the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions experimentally. These are important findings for the potential link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds.”

Sir…This and the recent article from the University of Colorado that confirms the oceans continue to rise 3.2 mm per year…only 3.2…
Should set us up to get something reasonable from the UN’s IPCC in a year or two…
I am sure they…those that write the story for governments…are paying attention.
We..the people all over the world…need get off the idea that CO2 is “bad”
Acorn1…San Diego

It is not the nail in the CAGW coffin, but it is strong evidence that the question remains on what is influencing the weather and by how much. Before the age of political graft, that was called science.

It’s a pity Calder is so sour. It detracts from the impact of the results.

I am very happy to see my discipline (Nuclear Physics) being used to such good effect in establishing the truth about climate change, and in cooperation with the chemists elucidating some of the finer detail of the mechanisms.

Erm it doesn’t confirm it, the original nature says tentative, and even Kirby says “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,”

It’s a little to early for Calder to be proclaiming game,set & match, but still interesting results.

“REPLY: Because I didn’t see the Nature report until just a few minutes ago, as noted at the top, I’ll be adding more as it develops. The tendency here by those on the publci funding dole will be to reduce the impact of the study by saying there is no connection and/or that it needs further study. I’ll post both sides. – Anthony”

Extremely well balanced.

Right, Louise, this report does not prove that the sun is the cause of all climate change. However, the work reported on is classically good science and it is extremely important for that reason alone. Having imbibed “mainstream climate science” for so many years, all of us are ready for a dose of genuine science.

The beginning of the end for CAGW! At the very least the GCMs will need to be reprogrammed
Calder, of course, co-authored ‘The Chilling Stars’ with Svensmark an excellent read. I fully understand the frustration that Calder and Svensmark must feel.
The next few weeks will be interesting especially the response of the MSM.

Try this address for Jasper Kirby’s entire CLOUD concept excellent presentation at CERN in 2009 but be patient with the first couple of minutes of introduction spoken in German followed by Kirby’s presentation in English :

I’ve been telling my students about Svensmark’s model since his book came out. Now we can discuss experimental support for the model- wow! what a teachable moment. Science at its best! You bet we’ll also discuss the politics – the kids are getting quite savvy about this scam.

Nigel, thanks much for your insights. I don’t know how Svensmark will be viewed in some circles, but, here in the real world of climatology, we know his contributions.

You are spot on about the costs of not exploring properly the issues raised by many, including Svensmark. It can’t be quantified, but the expense was great, and will continue until the politics dictating direction of research and flow of money is changed and the silly obsession over CO2 is abated.

I won’t bother anyone with my limited knowledge of molecular chemistry, but, I would point out that during my observations of the greater climate discussions there are two topics which the discussion always comes back to. The sun and clouds! It seems to me, any legitimate discussion on what runs our climate has to include both.

Strangely, the words running through my head now are lyrical…….

I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all

and

Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy
Sunshine in my eyes can make me cry
Sunshine on the water looks so lovely
Sunshine almost always makes me high

and for those that would ignore the effects of the sun…….

…………….
They call the Rising Sun
And it’s been the ruin of many a poor boy
And God I know I’m one

Organic chemical vapours may have a previously unimagined cooling effect on global climate. Measurements by researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) show that current theories can’t fully explain how clouds form and hint that organic aerosols – tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere – play an important role in the process.

BUTif we can only find out what those organic aerosols ARE, we may be able to forestall global cooling by introducing a suitable taxation mechanism. Of course, this will mean major adaptation to our existing models which some of us had started to question anyway …

P.S.
A few years ago I tried to give a colleague that has a science interest Svensmarks book “The Chilling Stars” (he is fanatically warmist) . He got angry and accused Svensmark of being anti-science and me of being dumb for falling for something so stupid (just in incredible).

As I read the abstract, the following points are made:
1. More than half the cloud droplets come from ion-induced droplets.

2. Current ammonia levels in the atmosphere increase the nucleation numbers by 100 – 1000 X at occurring in a non-ammonia containing atmosphere.

3. Current cosmic ray densities increase the amounts of nucleation between 2 and >10 relative to a non-cosmic ray environment as long as there is enough ammonia in the atmosphere. (the rate increases until saturation or stability occurs at the higher rates).

We “know” average cloud cover is about 26% (?) and cloud albedo between 0.6 and 0.9, averaging for this purpose 0.75 (?). The current insolation, averaged over the globe, is TOA 340.5 W/m2.

The IPCC give a value of about 3.4 W/m2 for a radiative value of the doubling of CO2, leading to a 1.4C – 3.0+ under current projections (> 2 ppmv/yr CO2) for Y2100.

So:

1. There is more than enough ammonia in the atmosphere to “use” more cosmic rays.
2. An increase of cosmic gamma rays by 2% (for example) leads to a 4% – >20% increase in nucleation numbers.
2. An increase of 4-20% increase in nucleation numbers leads to a 2-10% increase in cloud formation.

Given what we “know” about current cloud covers and insolation, a 2% increase in cosmic ray input leads to between an increase of 0.52% to 2.6% cloud cover (.265 to .286 cloud cover), and an increased reflectance of a 0.135 W/m2 to 6.64 W/m2 (using an RF of 0.75 for clouds).

Conclusion:

1. The equivalent radiative power for a 2% increase in cosmic ray input, 0.14 – 6.6 W/m2, is within the current range required to account for the global temperature increase since 1820, and beyond that of a worst-case scenario for CO2.

2. This experiment establishes an “as-good-as” mechanism as anthropogenic CO2 for the observed post-LIA temperature rise, and, in particular, the post-1965 temperature rise IF a rise in cosmic ray input equal to or less than 2% of the pre-LIA and/or pre-1965 period can be established.

So:

1) Could someone check/redo the math?
2) Could someone pull up a cosmic ray input graph of density vs time?

Bottom line – how much cosmic ray increase do we need to replace CO2 as a heating factor?

I’m a tad confused. Are the results from Cern a cause for conCERN, and if so for which side of the AGW debate? So far the way I read it that the increase cloud effect is only possible if ammonia is present? Bu then Calder says ammonia is always present in the real atmosphere. So is Svensgard right or not.

Since there is no trend in cosmic radiation over the last 50 years, it is simply not possible for changes in cosmic radiation to have caused the trend in global temperatures. The experiments reported in the Nature paper are useful and interesting but do not change this basic fact.

It’s easy for the Americans to wonder why Nigel Calder is so bitter. But, see: Europe is crippled by Kyoto and the crazy 20:20:20 initiative of the EU; Europe’s rulers (the unelected EU Commissioners) and nearly all ruling parties of the member states are warmists (with the notable exceptions of Czechia and maybe Poland). This continent is run by mad people; and elections don’t provide a remedy as all the parties try to out-green each other. If you think the Chevy Volt is an expensive failure of your government pork schemes, you’re welcome, we have projects like that in the EU all over the place, too many to mention. It’s the biggest theft in history. All of this has been driven by the AGW science movement. One could actually have done something useful with all the money, for instance leave it in people’s pockets.

Now to see if science really does matter to the AGW beast – or will it continue to feed on its own momentum and rhetoric?

<>

The timing couldn’t be better with Perry getting so much attention by calling AGW folks anti-scientific.

<>

BTW, this doesn’t mean CO2 doesn’t play a role. It just means the positive feedbacks that turn a physically likely 1-1.5C rise per CO2 doubling into 5-7C per doubling are, misdiagnosis based on models that denied the sun a role.

Retracing those 14 years, what if physics had functioned as it is supposed to do? What if CLOUD, quickly approved and funded, had verified the Svensmark effect with all the authority of CERN, in the early 2000s. What if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had done a responsible job, acknowledging the role of the Sun and curtailing the prophecies of catastrophic warming?

—————–

The consensus aCO2 biased IPCC is being shown and will be recorded in history as the blocker of profound scientific progress. Indeed, it wasn’t about science for the IPCC it was the advancing of their chartered CAGW political agenda.

Calder bitter? Appears to me he is speaking the truth about his experience. I ask Anthony and others to read this review of the science from 1998-2009 on cosmic-ray influence of Earth’s climate vis-a-vis solar max-min (esp the magnetic field): http://theclimatetruth.org/science/solar-variability-and-climate-cycles/cosmic-rays/. Does anyone believe they must be “careful” about acknowledging that this is the most significant theory at present, with vigorous evidence from experiments, observations, and paleoclimatology beyond anything else? I am not a scientist. Please help me.

It looks like a lot of work still needs to be done to demonstrate the effect of this discovery on the global cloud coverage and as a consequence the effect on the global warming/cooling, but definitely it’s a huge milestone in understanding the complex mechanism that is the Earth climate. I don’t expect AGW proponents to give up any of their mantra and I am waiting for their rebuttals that will affirm that the effect of cosmic ray, although present is minimal and unable to explain all the global warming observed in the past century and so on. Unfortunately it will take years of rigorous studies and experiments and discussions to prove the validity of this theory. And the scientific demonstration it’s not the biggest challenge I foresee. Most of all it will have to fight against the multibillion AGW industry.

Well I hope Dr. S. would find some time to comment.
Rate of the GCR’s impacts depends on the heliosphere’s magnetic field strength. However changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are of much larger magnitude (as Dr. S. has stated before) and these changes do correlate well with the temperature reconstructions:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
What I have discovered and suggest is that the Earth’s magnetic field in the Arctic also responds to the solar activity (I would appreciate any reference to this Arctic- Sun magnetic link prior to August 2009):http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm

…
The CLOUD results don´t provide much insight into all of this, and moreover we have seen no long term trend in GCR´s that would explain the warming observed since mid-century.

It isn’t the “long term trend in GCR’s that would explain the warming observed since mid-century”, it is the increased activity of the sun that’s been blocking GCRs during the last half of the last century.

With higher sun activity comes less cosmic rays; with less cosmic rays comes less clouds, and with less clouds comes more surface warmth on the earth. Now that sun’s overall activity has decreased–expect more cosmis rays, more clouds and less warmth.

“There is a series of measurements that we will have to do that will take at least five years,” he says. “But at the end of it, we want to settle it one way or the other.”

This last statement, as quoted in the Nature press release (here) seems designed to give cover to the hundreds, if not thousands, of ‘Climate Scientists’ in order to preserve their funding until either they can retire or find another field. It reminds me of the standardized last sentence of practically every peer review paper published today: “…however, this subject need further study.”

Also, I’m not sure if it was Kirkby or someone else, but I remember reading an article a couple of years ago stating that the funding of the CLOUD experiment was delayed and almost halted because the person proposing it at the time had made some statements about the possibility of disproving AGW. I can’t find the article now but will continue to look.

Perhaps Chris Colose can explain why a large pot of water put on the stove gets hotter and hotter, from room temperature all the way to boiling, despite no long term trend in the size of the flame underneath? Just a step from off to full.

The sun’s magnetic field and solar wind about doubled in the early 20th century, and has crashed back below normal just a few years ago. It will only take about a 2% worldwide increase in low clouds (per Cal’s Dr.Muller) to negate all the warming forecast by the IPCC, and 2% is on the order of what Svensmark found in his Forbush decrease analysis.

…
4. … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

You could prove it caused a 30% increase in cloud formation and Gavin would still deny there was any connection to climate. It just isn’t in his genes, or is it jeans (referring specifically to his pocketbook)?

REPLY: Colose is predictable, and shows up here with brethren anytime the status quo is threatened, they on the Team can’t handle any alternate ideas that may even figure as a portion of climate forcing. Just look at how hard they try to make UHI go away. These ideas must be squashed, much like the ridiculous spin from the New Scientist – Anthony

For the other side of the story, RealClimate already has a post on the paper here. where they state:

The other intriguing finding is that aerosol nucleation rates in the chamber don’t match (by a an order of magnitude or more) actual formation rates seen in real world near-surface atmospheric layers at realistic temperatures (only in unrealistically cold conditions do rates come close).

So if I understand this correctly, the CLOUD results so far say that Svensmark COULD be right, i.e. that solar modulation of cosmic rays COULD have an effect of unknown magnitude on the Earth’s climate system. In other words, Svensmark hasn’t been proven right, but his work just passed an important test that could have proved it wrong.

In that sense, cosmic ray climatology is a lot like CO2 climatology (i.e. plausible but unproven), except there’s no money (or votes) in it. Hey, that explains a lot… :-)

In light of the CLOUD results, one can reasonably expect to see the so-called consensus scientists, who have staunchly supported the IPCC assessments, continue to do so faithfully. They are the legacy scientists as opposed to the developing scientists outside of the aCO2 meme.

What the legacy aCO2 scientists say about CERN’s CLOUD experiment paper will not have any impact on those advancing scientists stepping into the exciting new area of study opened up by the Henrik Svensmark hypothesis and the resulting CLOUD experiment. The advancing scientists have no need of the legacy aCO2 scientist’s assessments; rightly so.

Congratulations to Henrik Svensmark for his brilliant hypothesis and to CERN for its achievements.

It’s interesting to read what Real Climate has to say about the subject. Of particular note is how rigorous they want the science before being able to say the sun affects climate, where as they only need a computer model to believe the importance of CO2 (this is not saying they’re wrong to want rigorous science, but that all science should be equally rigorous).

Northern California Bureaucrat says:
August 24, 2011 at 11:41 am
“With apologies to Mr. Spock…
Only human arrogance would assume the warming must be caused by man.”

I’d say more pampered western civilistion self loathing and guilt from idiots who wished humans had never started any fires and we all lived back in the stone age. Those really were times to remember; if you lived long enough that is. Those days a man could so easily really come well acquainted with nature, usually a tape worm hanging out his you know what-ah yes hockey stick.

Lets not get too elated here. There may well be other important actors beside cosmic ray shielding and, if so, the warmers will say ” But that can’t account for all of it. The rest must be CO2! ToldYaSo!”
And a reasonable skeptic must allow that CO2 may be a part of it.

Louise, my dear
If you’re going to quote Kirkby, try “there are huge, important areas where our understanding is poor at the moment”. He, rationally, doesn’t seem to accept “the science is settled”. Or attempt to reverse the null hypothesis. The “Svensmark hypothesis” has just passed its third empirical test. Better performance than the models!

In the new book “The Philosophical Breakfast Club” by Laura J. Snyder (Broadway Books, 2011, 439 pp.), she reported that a relationship between sunspot activity and atmospheric conditions was predicted long ago by the eminent astronomer Frederick William Herschel (1738-1822). Heinrich Schwabe (1789-1875) reported on his seventeen-year study of sunspots, which led him to conclude the there was a ten-year cycle of maximum sunspot activity. From Schwabe’s research, Edward Sabine (1788- 1883) recognized that the earth’s magnetic field was determined, in part, by cosmic factors such as sunspots. These magnetic studies showed that William Herschel had been correct to suggest a connection between sunspots and atmospheric conditions on earth.

REPLY: Colose is predictable, and shows up here with brethren anytime the status quo is threatened, they on the Team can’t handle any alternate ideas that may even figure as a portion of climate forcing. Just look at how hard they try to make UHI go away. These ideas must be squashed, much like the ridiculous spin from the New Scientist – Anthony
=======
Thanks for that explanation. I literally laughed out loud when I read what Colose wrote… followed shortly afterwards with a face palm.

Wrong as usual. What WUWT does best is to allow all sides to post comments, instead of the wholesale censorship practiced by alarmist blogs. That allows the truth to eventually be sifted out. Wake me when realclimate and its ilk start allowing a meaningful discussion.

The reason Svensmark probably didn´t receive much attention in the paper is because his results have long been refuted in the literature. The new Nature paper is interesting, but it is unable to put the causal link between cosmic rays and GW implied in this post. See some of the steps required (from Gavin´s post)

1. … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2. … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3. … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4. … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

The CLOUD results don´t provide much insight into all of this, and moreover we have seen no long term trend in GCR´s that would explain the warming observed since mid-century.

The solution to CAGW should be obvious to all now thanks to CERN. We impose a cosmic ray tax and we sequester underground all the cosmic rays that come out of coal fired powerplants and the exhaust pipes of SUV’s. Any leftover cosmic rays will be chopped up be the windmill farms and absorbed by solar panels. Problem solved. Now wasn’t that an easy way to save GAIA?

Okay, so assuming that GCR’s aren’t constant, now we need to measure GCR’s outside of Earth orbit over time, then compare that to CGR’s at top of atmosphere and ground level over time, then compare those to clouds over time. That should tell us the nature of the relationship. For example, is there a delayed reaction like with Mt Pinatubo, or is it faster or slower? Is it light side of the earth only, or is it both light and dark sides? Does it vary by latitude? Enough work remains to make a career out of it for someone. That’s the person who will get the Nobel.

A while back I posted a comment on a well known Australian blog referring to Nigel Calder and something he had written way back in the 1970’s relating to global cooling. Nothing particularly sensational about what he said.

The response was vitriolic, with commentators denigrating him at every turn. I believe this was shortly after ‘The Chilling Stars’ was published. So perhaps he is right to feel a bit peeved.

Might be worth reviewing the Watts Up With That blog post of May 20, 2011 by Dr. Roy Spencer entitled “Indirect Solar Forcing ofr Climate by Gallactic Cosmic Rays: An Observational Estimate” that had 419 comments.

Of the little research money expected in the severe global economy, we can see that a much higher percentage should now go to develop a line of science based on the exciting results of the CLOUD experiment. That means less $ for the aCO2 centric IPCC consensus science. The consensus scientists claim their science is settled, right? So they really don’t, by their own settled views, need more money. Oops. : )

Scarface says:
August 24, 2011 at 11:13 am
“If this isn’t the final nail in the coffin for CAGW, I don’t know what is.”

_____
Show me how wide ranging the lack of understanding of the bigger perspective on climate is. As though the notion that yes, cosmic rays may have some effect on climate, negates the fact that CO2 does as well. As though this is an all-or-nothing proposition. There are many multiple factors (forcings) that affect climate on vastly different time scales, with different set of feedbacks, and different net effects on climate. Milankovitch cycles, greenhouse gases, solar cycles (long and short), volcanoes, biosphere interactions such as phytoplankton, etc. all are factors, and research such as this gives us more definitive ideas about how cosmic rays may play their part, but it in now way lessens the actions or potency of the other contributors to the climate puzzle.

It is possible, and I would say likely, that the solar/cosmic ray/cloud relationship could be a real effect ALONG WITH with the notion that increasing greenhouse gases by anywhere from 30 to 300% could also affect the climate. It is not all or none when it comes to the complex puzzle that is the climate. More importantly is to know when, where, and how each forcing acts and to what degree.

Well if anything was guaranteed to knock dear Irene off pole position this is it.

I find it amazing how in such a woefully short period of time the discussion can become so polarised. I can understand individuals having strong views, but scientific publications? Unless of course they have been studying the paper? I will wait my time, it will take me awhile (more like a long time) to gain comprehension.

I can understand somebody saying there are things to learn from the paper but I give no truck to the view that this “changes nothing”, that at such an early time, can only be described as arm waving of the most desperate kind.

From the Nature article, Kirkby is a bit more muted in his assessment than the GWPF:

Kirkby is ‘a bit more muted’ because he got his wing clipped back in 1998 when he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”

Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice.

This is a nice report on some good science – with appropriately bitter reflections on those who tried to block it.

Lots of people here seem to see it as some kind of climate wars coup – but it isn’t. On the contrary, it is a long term “good thing” -whose most important political/emotional effect will, I think, be to push a few more fence sitters caught between funding exigencies and the need to do science off the right side.

nycoordinator says:
August 24, 2011 at 11:29 am
Hooray!!!!
The AGW hoax is dead!
Henrik Svensmark should be given a REAL Nobel Prize!

REPLY: Not dead, just dented – Anthony

_____
I’m really suprized at you Anthony, for thinking these results “dent” the concept that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases could affect the climate. The two are not mutually exclusive and both could be true to one degree or another.

Colose, you can cut and paste from RC darn good.
“Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been.”

1. Analyses that highlight correlations between solar activity and climate indices have been given new respectability, and will be pursued and vigorously disputed.
2. Hypotheses and experiments to quantify the real cloud droplet formation rates, over temperature, pressure, and humidity, from the cosmic-ray induced particles, will be pursued and vigorously disputed.

That should be a fascinating news story for all people interested in climate. It is a genuine breakthrough in the understanding of the climatic cycles.

No doubt that early work needs to be challenged, reproduced, amended, etc. However, it’s funny how some people now want a direct proof, a causal relationship, etc., before being convinced. There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical, but such a hard proof is missing too from the CO2 hypothesis.

Now imagine the headlines on your daily newspaper tomorrow morning if such an experiment would confirm instead the CO2 hypothesis: it would be a riot of “proved beyond doubt”, “settled beyond discussion”, etc. I’m not making that up: I’ve seen such headlines in the last 10 years (well, less of them in the last 2). Take for example the miserable hockey stick story: a statistical study, and a poor one at that, not even checked, becoming the emblem of a whole movement.

Speaking of double-standards, the UCS, very concerned and very keen on “scientific integrity”, has not published the results of its cartoon contest (see the post of 08/20) as of now. The page just says “Thanks for your vote”… Perhaps some people don’t accept the data (vote tally) when it does not fit their theory? They did accept the candidacy of cartoon #8, though, which somehow speaks for them.

The paper, on which Kirkby is lead author, says: “…the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions experimentally”

Is it not then incorrect for Kirkby to say: “those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds” when he has published that he does not know this?

@Gates, Colose
Don’t you realize that this is science. Observations, experimental evidence, contradicting the models. Svensmark’s hypothesis may or may not be true. It’s just passed its third experimental test. Frantic spinning will not affect its validity.

Show me how wide ranging the lack of understanding of the bigger perspective on climate is. As though the notion that yes, cosmic rays may have some effect on climate, negates the fact that CO2 does as well.

Nice of you to finally acknowledge that there are other factors invovled with changing climate, not just CO2. I doubt anyone here says that cosmic rays are the only factor, indeed, we know there are many that have been dismissed by the alarmist because they do not fit into the popular meme.

The fist-bumping at the new ¨death blow¨”(as there is one every day on this blog) and the hostility toward me was very predictable…very well, I will let you all continue to misrepresent the scope of the paper…doesn´t matter to me. It´s what WUWT does best.
REPLY: In the meantime, perhaps you’ll learn not to be such a sourpuss and learn to smile, eh Chris? Or has the doom and gloom you defend permeated you permanently? – Anthony

“Earth currently absorbs more sunlight (the power output per unit area) than any other body with an atmosphere in our solar system.”

And yet Earth has a vastly smaller (by 3 to 4 order of magnitude) concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere than Venus or Mars. Same with other greenhouse gasses such as sulfuric acid in the case of Venus.

The reason Svensmark probably didn´t receive much attention in the paper is because his results have long been refuted in the literature. The new Nature paper is interesting, but it is unable to put the causal link between cosmic rays and GW implied in this post. See some of the steps required (from Gavin´s post)

1. … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2. … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
3. … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4. … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

The CLOUD results don´t provide much insight into all of this, and moreover we have seen no long term trend in GCR´s that would explain the warming observed since mid-century.

Indeed sir, and in order to accept that the CO2-based computer models demonstrate a causal link between global temperature and human-released CO2, I personally would need to see these steps completed.

Anthony, I neglected to commend you for your excellent summary history of the “wall” and the science. How wonderful and exciting it would have been to have poured our resources into developing real science over the last 15 years rather than perpetrating a fraud. So many years lost from one perspective. But from another, I bet few inquiring minds would have brushed up on all their various fields of science without the impetus of being “gored”. Now we need to develop a new media to explain this “new” science to the public — and to help those politicians standing for election explain these truths to the electorate. Thanks again and thanks for WUWT, one such new media.

R. Gates says:
August 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm
nycoordinator says:
August 24, 2011 at 11:29 am
Hooray!!!!
The AGW hoax is dead!
Henrik Svensmark should be given a REAL Nobel Prize!

REPLY: Not dead, just dented – Anthony

_____
I’m really suprized at you Anthony, for thinking these results “dent” the concept that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases could affect the climate. The two are not mutually exclusive and both could be true to one degree or another.

The concept ASSERTION is that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases DOMINATES the climate.

By “concentration” I meant to say “composition”. Percentage of the atmosphere (though Venus’s atmosphere is 90x more dense than Earth, “concentration” doesn’t hold true for Mars which is much thinner, but still predominately CO2)

Chris Colose: – Is the ‘non-trend’ in cosmic rays at all disputed (yes I saw Gavin’s chart)? What would Svensmark’s answer be? Also is Svensmark’s apparent correlation between FD and cloud cover accepted or disputed?

I understand the theory. If you want to explain the warming with a decrease in cosmic rays, then detecting a decrease in cosmic rays would be a good first step, no? I realize the whole point here is to glorify any idea that goes against AGW, simply because it goes against AGW, but try to be as skeptical about alternative ideas as you are about what CO2 can do.

The Nature paper is highly valuable, and will play a great (but still preliminary) role in understanding of aerosol chemistry. But the links to trends in cloud cover, to radiative forcing, to AGW being dented, etc is nowhere close to being justified by this work. If people feel the need to be hostile and angry by me pointing this out, perhaps it´s time for self-evaluation of how much you are actually interested in the advancement of science vs. cheerleading for anything that allegedly goes against AGW.

“It is possible, and I would say likely, that the solar/cosmic ray/cloud relationship could be a real effect ALONG WITH with the notion that increasing greenhouse gases by anywhere from 30 to 300% could also affect the climate. It is not all or none when it comes to the complex puzzle that is the climate. More importantly is to know when, where, and how each forcing acts and to what degree.”

Quite true, but what you are saying goes against IPCC cannon. In previous reports, solar activity has been relegated to 0.1% variations in forcing, and this is indeed how the models are programmed. If CGR does play a role in climate, then aren’t we also saying that the models are wrong by omission? Since models do not include the warming effect of decreased CGR then does it not follow that they must in fact be overstating the warming effect due to co2 in order to produce their hindcasts?

Chris Colose, you are right to warn against taking the paper (and the underlying results) beyond what is merited — good advice to all participants in the discussion.

With that caveat in mind, where do you think we should go from here? With CLOUD’s verification of (at least part of ) Svensmark’s idea, do you believe his hypothesis merits additional consideration, and funding, so that we can get a better handle on the influence of cosmic rays on climate?

Frank Black says:
August 24, 2011 at 11:44 am
“I’ve been telling my students about Svensmark’s model since his book came out. Now we can discuss experimental support for the model- wow! what a teachable moment. Science at its best! You bet we’ll also discuss the politics – the kids are getting quite savvy about this scam.”

Yes, real science can command broad public interest. It just might be the “Rock & Roll” that cures the MSM of its love affair with CAGW.

I understand the theory. If you want to explain the warming with a decrease in cosmic rays, then detecting a decrease in cosmic rays would be a good first step, no? I realize the whole point here is to glorify any idea that goes against AGW, simply because it goes against AGW, but try to be as skeptical about alternative ideas as you are about what CO2 can do.

The Nature paper is highly valuable, and will play a great (but still preliminary) role in understanding of aerosol chemistry. But the links to trends in cloud cover, to radiative forcing, to AGW being dented, etc is nowhere close to being justified by this work. If people feel the need to be hostile and angry by me pointing this out, perhaps it´s time for self-evaluation of how much you are actually interested in the advancement of science vs. cheerleading for anything that allegedly goes against AGW.

First of all, I’m a scientist and an engineer–a strange breed of professional that sees science not only for what it is, but also for what it does. I’m looking for glorification only as a counter to closed-minded AGW acolytes who think they know the theory but what they actually know is not applicable or salient. And it is never as catastrophic or apocalyptic as they report.

But enough about me–this whole problem is that your vaunted “cheerleaders” of AGW, such as Gore, Mann, Jones, Schmidt, Trenberth, and so forth, are really not acting like government- or academia- or tax-paid scientists. THEY are the ones you should investigate; they feed at the public trough and take grants and tax money and make all sorts of claims and seldom divulge data or methodology (“lost” data or emails seems to be all in a day’s work for the AGW crowd; suppression of dissent is their standard public relations). On occasion I have called them “climsci” people–which stands for “climate science” and I foreshorten it because they only pretend to be scientists and seldom directly study the climate. (I’ve read the HARRY_READ_ME file and it makes me sick–is this what you hold up as a shining example of AGW science? There are many more examples and the joke is on you if you don’t see it.)

I do not get paid by government or research grants or Big Oil. I am in the private sector out of the fog of AGW but I have been skeptical about CO2–as skeptical as the data allows but that’s what helps me determine that CO2 isn’t the culprit you think it is–not even close. Theory embodied in models doesn’t withstand scrutiny. In fact, I’m a cheerleader for fossil fuels because of the long-term benefits. Yup, benefits. They far outweigh the fanticized downside.

Not so. They praise the paper, but they dispute the hypothesis that changes in GCRs are related to 20th century global temperature changes. I think they are too credulous regarding AGW, but on this topic they are appropriately skeptical.

The entire premise behind CO2 being part of the warming was stressed in the 1990 IPCC report number 1. Don’t you remember your history? They stated (paraphrased) that we can not account for X warming and since the only theory on the table IS CO2 based warming, this must be the culprit. Of course every report went farther after the first one especially number 2 in 1996 which stated that the science “discovered” the human imprint on the climate. This caused quite a shock among the scientists at the time as it was added after they went home and indeed they never had found the human thumbprint. In fact, scientists to this DAY have never found that thumb-print.

Since we now have a viable theory, the entire IPCC line of reasoning is gone, and the entire settled science is defeated. There is another theory which has actual empirical results to back it up. The physics works, the measurements works and you don’t need aerosols to explain the cooling from 1940 – 1970 or in the last 10 years.

In other words, there is NOT one way this theory is not better today. If you still think the climate is driven by CO2 in other words, you are simply back-pedaling and denying the evidence presented here. Sure, CO2 can still have an effect, but you never proved back at the start what this effect was other then the “we can not account for the warming so it must be man” fallacy.

This is a much better theory that fits the bill much better. Yes, I tend to agree that CO2 has an impact and consequently so does man, but we can argue the actual effect later. This just throws the IPCC assesment figure of 1.5C to 4.5C per doubling of CO2 out the window. Throw it away. Give it up. Look for new theories.

This theory has now stood up to scrutiny which is something the CAGW theory never could do. As someone else mentioned here:

Northern California Bureaucrat says:
August 24, 2011 at 11:41 am

“With apologies to Mr. Spock…

Only human arrogance would assume the warming must be caused by man.”

And indeed that is what the history books will look back at CAGW and call it. Arrogance. That is what I see here when a more viable theory is posted about the 20th century warming and all they can do is tell us “but CO2 has an effect.”

Great, prove that CO2 has more of an effect then clouds (cosmic rays now too) and maybe you will get somewhere.

Chris Colose says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:11 pm
“The reason Svensmark probably didn´t receive much attention in the paper is because his results have long been refuted in the literature.”

Is the only purpose of science to prove what causes GW? So, because Svensmark has not proved that the sun controls global warming, you want to claim that his science is refuted? I do not think that word, ‘refuted’, means what you think it means.

“The new Nature paper is interesting, but it is unable to put the causal link between cosmic rays and GW implied in this post.”

Ah, but it opens investigation of a causal link between cosmic rays and global warming. You would not want to discourage good scientists from pursuing such an investigation, would you?

Chris C. – thanks for coming along and proclaiming some much needed precautions. I too, while simpathetic so some of the skeptical arguments, am very tired of reading ‘the final nail in the AGW coffin’….that gets old and tiresome. Anyway, don’t know if you have any sort of relationship with Gavin, but if you do it would be great if you could persuade him to ‘open up’ his website for real dialog. Thanks.

Your criterion for ‘reasonable’ appears incoherent with and inimical toward a broad spectrum of those interested in independent (of the IPCC consensus) assessment of our climate system.

Speaking of independent, at lot of scientific energy and funds will start to flow toward the line of science opening up as a result of Henrik Svensmark’s original brilliant hypothesis and the associated CLOUD experiment results. The aCO2 centric and IPCC consensus funding lock now is gone.

Now that is something for independents (a.k.a. skeptics) to really cheer about.

Didn’t we already know that such particles could provide condensation nuclei ?

The real issue is whether they do so in practice given that there is no shortage of nuclei already.

My problem with the Svensmark hypothesis is that the simple production of more clouds doesn’t seem to get us far in explaining the other observations of what happens when climate changes occur namely latitudinal shifts in the jets, changes in atmospheric blocking frequencies, shifting climate zones and changes in the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.

Subject to further investigation I still think that our best bet to cover all that is chemical processes involving ozone in the upper atmosphere varying as the level of solar activity changes, especially in the UV wavelengths.

Most likely the Svensmark process helps a bit but overall not much with it just being coincidental that cosmic ray quantities also increase at the same time as and in the same circumstances when the upper atmospheric chemical changes occur.

pochas says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:55 pm
‘Lets not get too elated here. There may well be other important actors beside cosmic ray shielding and, if so, the warmers will say ” But that can’t account for all of it. The rest must be CO2! ToldYaSo!”’

The Warmista have gone to the max against Svensmark for sometime. They have overplayed their hand big time. If there is any connection along Svensmark’s lines between cosmic rays and cloud cover on Earth, the Warmista will be dining on Crow indefinitely.

Anyone can see that when the Ivory tower leaks unpalatable truth, it becomes very stinky in the ivory tower. This is such a case. They’re scrambling fast to find an exit now because their own members are saying things that go against what was previously said.

@ Scarface
No, I think we need to find a crossroads, carrying a sharpened wooden stake, garlic, a cross and a mirror. Sunlight would help ……. but, hey, I forgot that the Sun has no (zero, nada …. ) influence!

Ray– They are not trying to bring down the paper. They are trying to bring down inappropriate misrepresentations of the paper, or articles that try to significantly expand the scope of what they say in the paper. Read it more carefully.

“I don´t understand the hostility that comes from trying to tell people to not misread a paper, and to accurately report results. Is this a bad thing?”

The problem is your obsession with proving CAGW. That is all you care to discuss. When posting here, all you care to do is take whatever cheap shots you can at any science that does not support CAGW. You come across as a Bot. There are many other things to discuss.

Svensmark’s work will improve our understanding of cloud behavior and will contribute to our understanding of climate behavior. Warmista have nothing on cloud behavior. Svensmark’s work is first rate science that fulfills perfectly all the standards of scientific method. No Warmista dare talk about scientific method. If Trenberth were made aware of the existence of scientific method, somehow, he would declare something like “Reverse the damn scientific method” as he did about the null hypothesis.

I don´t understand the hostility that comes from trying to tell people to not misread a paper, and to accurately report results. Is this a bad thing?

No, it’s quite a good thing to help set the limits of what the CLOUD experiment can cover. What’s a very bad thing is the condescending attitude you’ve picked up in the Ivory Tower – you should spend some time as a TV meteorologist and visit all the schools in the viewing area. That would help teach you how to convey what you have to say without riling up the people you currently talk down to.

It also doesn’t help that you said (or at least I read) that which CLOUD didn’t test doesn’t exist, e.g. the small molecular clusters growing into functional CCNs. Emphasize what CLOUD looke for, what it found, and note what still needs to be studied. Admit you don’t know some of the answers yourself and be interested in future research that’s needed and people will take you more seriously.

Earlier in my software engineering career, I was pretty condescending to people who didn’t know as much as I thought they should about what I worked on. These days things are so big and complex and there’s so much stuff I should know something about but don’t that I spend a lot more time being humble about all of it.

Clearly what we now need is a controlled experiment.
It should be possible to build an accelerator that will produce a free-space beam of high-energy particles, perhaps pions, provided that it operates in vacuum. Such an accelerator should be built and placed in orbit, then used to irradiate selected areas of the Earth while cloud formation (or not) is observed.
Going by previous experience (Hubble, e.g.) this process would take approximately fifteen years, from design phase through Green-inspired litigation to launch, further litigation, and finally beginning the experiment.
The true value of this approach is hinted at in the “…waiting for CLOUD” remarks, above. Colose et. al. could simply shrug and say that, since the crucial experiment has not been performed, AGW can proceed as scheduled. If the apparent ages of the people involved are as they seem, it would allow a considerable number of flimflammers to remain on the Government teat until retirement.
Look for a serious proposal any day now.
Regards,
Ric

“…it would be great if you could persuade him to ‘open up’ his website for real dialog. Thanks.”

It will never happen. Transparency and the scientific method would destroy the Mann/Schmidt AGW scare in short order. So the climate scammers will continue to censor, while being paid by an unwilling public.

These people are defrauding taxpayers by blogging and writing comments throughout their work day. Chris Colose has been commenting here for half the day on this thread alone, and I regularly see his comments on other sites. As he states in his blog, “…I have also written for other blogs, including RealClimate.org and SkepticalScience.com.” There are so many like Colose with their snouts deep in the public trough that as an overburdened taxpayer I dream of the day when someone takes action against their fraudulent misappropriation of public funds. The internet never forgets, and at some point there will be a reckoning.

Chris Colose wrote: If people feel the need to be hostile and angry by me pointing this out, perhaps it´s time for self-evaluation of how much you are actually interested in the advancement of science vs. cheerleading for anything that allegedly goes against AGW.

I read WUWT and RC regularly, and I post at each occasionally. You can expect derision, anger and hostility at both places, even for well-formed, well-informed, and reasonable comments. That’s just the way it is.

I think that the CO2 promoters are wrong, but at the same time I am not convinced by the GCR count either, since number of GCR protons is just as low as the number of CO2 molecules in respect of the atmosphere’s composition; both are negligible, the effect is probably there, but to move the global climate highly unlikely, regardless CO2 or GCRs.
The AGW zealots are totally unrealistic about the CO2 effectives, so sceptics should not fall into same trap, until the GCRs are shown as the likely principal agent for the natural change; for the moment the link is very tenuous indeed. Let’s remember that the principle was discovered decades ago, when the Wilson’s cloud chamber was invented.
I agree with the (now surprisingly absent) Dr. Svalgaard’s past comments on this particular matter!
I will not bother with Chris C & Gates, since their comments have failed to bring anything which would advance my knowledge or even diminish my ignorance.

Chris Colose says:
August 24, 2011 at 1:00 pm“I understand the theory. If you want to explain the warming with a decrease in cosmic rays, then detecting a decrease in cosmic rays would be a good first step, no?”

It’s also important to destinguish between CR’s (which you mention above) and GCR’s (i.e. energy levels), and remember that Svensmarks hypothesis involves muon’s – which are the main source of ionisation in the atmosphere at the low cloud heights that he’s interested in. Counts of cosmic-ray muons at low altitudes were historically low when record keeping stopped in the early 90’s.

Svensmark also apparently gets a pretty good fit over the last 20 odd years when he plots Huancayo/Haleakala Neutron data (as a proxy for muon’s), against tropospheric air temperature (HadAT2), or ocean sub-surface water temperature (SODA).

Although the CLOUD team haven’t yet discovered the specific compounds which are responsible for an ion-induced mechanism at the boundary layer, I’m sure it’s just a matter of time…

There seems to be a lot of very quite, naked, people standing around today! I wonder where they all were, yesterday, and why the world didn’t notice them? After all, They were not wearing ANY CLOTHES!! Congrats to all! GK

No suprise that when real science rears it’s head, out pop the table top scientists”modelers”
and start whining.
It was a sad day for science when they took the results from GCM over real observation.
science settled? ….indeed, shame on you..

This thread is hilarious. After over a decade of trying to experimentally demonstrate a theory with regards to clouds, a 3rd and very solid result is obtained that supports the original theory. That theory is that GCRs affect cloud cover.

Cloud cover ultimately affects W/m2 on the earth more than CO2 ever will, this is an acknowledged fact of the matter.

For over 20 years, other people have been saying that human released CO2 is causing what will ultimately be catastrophic global warming. They have never run an experiment. They have models that they hold up as evidence. They had no experiments demonstrating their model’s accuracy. If anything, the global temperature has diverged from their projections, and their tropical Hot Spot has failed to materialize in all measurements made. Despite this, they told everyone for 20 years that mankind was affecting the climate by driving SUVs instead of hybrids and that our actions now would put our children at risk. They shamelessly bankrolled this into political momentum that declared many free thinkers who dared to question to be evildoers and worthy of execution for crimes against humanity (I’m not making any of this up).

Now, when a single website hails this new EXPERIMENTAL result (not a model for you model lovers), and declares that the other theory is now in serious trouble… somehow we’re guilty of cheerleading. HOW DARE WE NOT BE SKEPTICAL OF OUR OWN RESULTS GUYS!! HOW DARE WE!! WE SHOULD EXPRESS APPROPRIATE DOUBT ABOUT THESE EXPERIMENTS!! Even though those other guys never doubted model results for 20 years… oh dear me.

For those who did not grow up on a farm, all decaying animal or vegetable matter releases ammonia. Starting at about age 12, I managed a chicken farm with a capacity of about 13,000 chickens. The ammonia from chicken manure will knock you on your butt.

Ged– I´m not sure what your points have to do with my simple statement that Earth absorbs more sunlight per unit area than any other planet or moon (though I should probably have said input and not output, but I think everyone understands). This is just a simple fact and I never attached much physical significance to it in my home page.

The fist-bumping at the new ¨death blow¨”(as there is one every day on this blog) and the hostility toward me was very predictable…very well, I will let you all continue to misrepresent the scope of the paper…doesn´t matter to me. It´s what WUWT does best.

REPLY: In the meantime, perhaps you’ll learn not to be such a sourpuss and learn to smile, eh Chris? Or has the doom and gloom you defend permeated you permanently? – Anthony

—————–

Chris Colose,

Chris, your “I will let you all continue to misrepresent the scope of the paper…” says it all about your worldview. You will let us? You wonder at our courtesy when you give us that condescending pathology? Really Chris.

You and I both know that the only thing propping up the aCO2 biased consensus science is the sanction of the UN for the IPCC assessments. Without the UN/IPCC involved there would be no aCO2 dominance for the past >20 years. Other aspects of climate science were slowed or blocked because of the UN/IPCC pre-emption toward aCO2. We know this. Everyone knows this. Even the consensus aCO2 IPCC supporters know this. The man in the street knows this; the electorate knows this.

The lines of research that were pre-empted by the aCO2 biased IPCC consensus are now breaking free of the protectionist consensus scientists. That is really great for the broad perspective of an objective science versus the IPCC subjective venue. This is happening by efforts of some real scientific heroes . . . . they will inspire even more independent scientists that will maintain the challenge to the IPCC roadblock.

Fist bumping? No, a serene moment of reflection on the lessons learned that all independents can use to expose the next piece of consensus gamesmanship.

I love it. What’s really amusing is that the cloud chamber, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_cloud_chamber, a major instrument developed to study cosmic rays, was originally developed in 1911 for “studying cloud formation and optical phenomena in moist air”.

“and declares that the other theory (i.e. AGW) is now in serious trouble…”

____
It’s funny, but I’ve long thought it quite likely that GCR’s affect cloud cover, and that this was part of (with high energy UV being the other) the missing connection between sun and earth’s climate. Now, the fact that I’ve got no problems seeing the full scale and spectrum of forcings that can affect the earth’s climate, with CO2 being just part of the equation…how does that make me a hypocrite?

As you have no idea who I am or what I believe, I’ll forgive your ignorance this one time. But your suggestion that finding a potential connection in ONE of the ways the earth’s climate is regulated somehow negates the effects of another way is suggestive of the kind of desperation that skeptics are showing in trying to disprove AGW.

R. Gates says:
August 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“I’m really suprized at you Anthony, for thinking these results “dent” the concept that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases could affect the climate. The two are not mutually exclusive and both could be true to one degree or another.”

Yes my good man, it is the degree that is in question. Adding another piece of the puzzle certainly lessens the degree of warming that CO2 supposedly causes. Perhaps your “40% increase in CO2″ isn’t as fatal as you fear it to be.

Of course this shows that there are many factors that come into play where climate is concerned.

Cosmic rays influencing cloud formation aside, my only other comment is that previous articles have mentioned a decline in atmospheric methane….doesn’t this completely obliterate any supposed notion that CO2 drives increases in temperature?

simpleseekeraftertruth says:
August 24, 2011 at 2:08 pm
R. Gates says:
August 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm “I’m really suprized at you Anthony, for thinking these results “dent” the concept that increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases could affect the climate.”

And what odds would you now give that CO2 feedback with water vapour is greater than unity?.
_____

Glad you asked that. You see, the big driver of climate, is, and has been for millions of years, the Milankovitich cycles. Unfortunately, at the core of these cycles, which do follow glacial and interglacials cycles quite nicely, is what is known as the “disproportionate effects” problem. Quite simply stated, the effects produced by the Milankovtich cycle, when taken in total, is far greater than the cause (i.e. the change in NH summer insolation). It is in fact, disproportionate by quite a bit. Interestingly, when looking at the ice core samples and matching them up to the Milankovitch cycle, an very revealing thing is found, CO2 follows temperatures, but lags a bit at the start of an uptrend in temperatures, but then quickly catches up and follows quite nicely. This remains one of the strongest clues (along with the amount of dust deposited in the ice) about what’s going on, and the answer to the fact that the effects of the Milankovitch cycles far exceed the slight change in insolation. It’s called positive feedback, and it happens with both CO2 outgassing from the oceans, but also, the taking up of CO2 by the phytoplankton of the oceans. As the oceans warm and more moisture is evaporated, that moisture travels to the land areas where the dust was being produced. Those areas now produce less dust, and hence, less fertilization of the plankton, which take up less CO2, further enhancing the warming, and the positive feedback loop is established. The only way Milankovitch cycles can produce the degree of warming they do is through positive feedback loops involving CO2. Let me repeat: The only way Milankovitich cycles can produce the degree of warming they do is through positive feedback loops involving CO2.

So to your question: What do I think the odds are that CO2 feedback with water vapor are more than unity? 100%. They have to be or we’d never break out of an ice-house world.

For those who did not grow up on a farm, all decaying animal or vegetable matter releases ammonia. Starting at about age 12, I managed a chicken farm with a capacity of about 13,000 chickens. The ammonia from chicken manure will knock you on your butt.

============

Theo Goodwin,

I was born and raised on a small family owned dairy farm in northern NY State. I moved tons of pig, chicken, goat and cow manure. Perfume! Ammonia, methane and all. : )

I find R Gates ‘acceptance’ that GCRs may be a part contributor to AGW fascinating – but I suspect this will be the ‘new’ direction (aka excuse) of the warmists…..
I do not doubt that CO2 plays some part in earths temperature – but catastrophically? – definately NOT – and as for the human contribution, I cannot see it being sufficient, so for me, once I started looking into the subject, CO2 was ALWAYS the likely minor player! Not least because indicators point to CO2 rising after temp rises as per ice cores, etc.
The climate and all its ‘parts’ is a weird wonderful and complex place – and I don’t care if your name is Bill Gates and you can set a billion computers working on a ‘model’ of the climate – it’s still a fecking model and it’s unlikely to be ever complete enough to make crazy future climate predictions! This is what causes the ‘hoax’ calls by some quarters – because in ANY other similarly complex and virtually unmodelable system, no-one would even bother trying! To my mind it would be like trying to predict the colour of a pubic hair left on a toilet seat in a specific booth in Heathrow airport on 22nd July 2100….the assumptions you would have to make are simply too enormous and the uncertainties far outweigh the natural variability!

As for those who feel it is the final nail – I can’t agree, as per the style of dictators desperate to stay in power, the Team will fight tooth and nail…………Personally, I don’t care about them – as I still believe that the scientific truth will out ……eventually!

“Experiment probes connection between climate change and radiation bombarding the atmosphere. It sounds like a conspiracy theory: ‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate… ”

Well, a pattern simply added from heliocentric tide aspects of some planets, gives evidence that changing the climate is mostly solar system home made:

In detail there are some anomalies visible, which could be of terrestrial cause and/or its oscillations of the fluids. But it seems that the climax function is inverse to Svensmark.

However, Bob D. said:

“Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who
That it’s namin’.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.”

The fist-bumping at the new ¨death blow¨”(as there is one every day on this blog) and the hostility toward me was very predictable…very well, I will let you all continue to misrepresent the scope of the paper…doesn´t matter to me. It´s what WUWT does best.

REPLY: In the meantime, perhaps you’ll learn not to be such a sourpuss and learn to smile, eh Chris? Or has the doom and gloom you defend permeated you permanently? – Anthony

I’m not defending or objecting to any particular viewpoint here, but I find the owner of the blog taking pot-shots at a contributor via a “REPLY:” within the comment as over-stepping the mark of what is fair and reasonable. This area (the comments) is a discussion; Chris has as much right to his opinion as anyone here – including you, Anthony. Reply by all means, but do so in the same way that other contributors do: via a separate comment.

9,5 month between submission and acceptance by Nature : a good score for such a boat rocking paper ; most probably, the CLOUD team should already have in hand some further ‘ammunition’ for a second paper ; would be interesting to know whether they will publish again before IPCC’s AR5 deadline !

It should be possible to build an accelerator that will produce a free-space beam of high-energy particles, perhaps pions, provided that it operates in vacuum. Such an accelerator should be built and placed in orbit, then used to irradiate selected areas of the Earth while cloud formation (or not) is observed.

Are you not also describing a scalable “weather control” device?? Say it isn’t so, especially in light of the sulfur effect, another adjustable parameter. GK

Ged– I´m not sure what your points have to do with my simple statement that Earth absorbs more sunlight per unit area than any other planet or moon (though I should probably have said input and not output, but I think everyone understands). This is just a simple fact and I never attached much physical significance to it in my home page.

Are you sure that is correct? I would have expected Venus and Mercury to absorb more sunlight per unit area than the Earth.

The warmists will take the spin put on the paper as proof of man cooling the climate and carry on as per, while us realists see it as confirming (so far) that Svensmark was onto something. However, maybe more of the undecided and unaware will have their eyes opened to the lack of concensus and start to get a little bit upset at the political games being played.

DirkH said @ August 24, 2011 at 12:03 pm
“It’s easy for the Americans to wonder why Nigel Calder is so bitter. But, see: Europe is crippled by Kyoto and the crazy 20:20:20 initiative of the EU; Europe’s rulers (the unelected EU Commissioners) and nearly all ruling parties of the member states are warmists (with the notable exceptions of Czechia and maybe Poland). This continent is run by mad people; and elections don’t provide a remedy as all the parties try to out-green each other.”

Everywhere seems to be run by mad people. And if elections actually changed anything, they would be made illegal…

“Let me repeat: The only way Milankovitich cycles can produce the degree of warming they do is through positive feedback loops involving CO2.”
=========
The only way ??
No other possible explanation ?
No doubt in your mind?
Scientists in the future will chuckle at our current theories, and more so at those that proclaimed anything like a certainty.

R.Gates, and the others, the significance of this is that it undermines the dismissal of the variation in solar TSI as being the cause of GW. The argument, if you recall, was: It can’t be due to anything else we know of, so it must be due to CO2. Now we know there were things we did not know.

The warmistas must now re-assess this argument from ignorance. It has been shown invalid.

“This area (the comments) is a discussion; Chris has as much right to his opinion as anyone here – including you, Anthony.”

Actually, Derek, only Anthony has a right to comment here. He has passed that right on to selected others, it seems, but not to me or the vast majority of people who post here. Also, he has the right to ban commenters. Chris is ripe for banning, mostly because most of us believe he is a Bot.

Real scientific endeavour started behind the eight ball, overwhelmed by propaganda and ridicule.

This puts real science in front of the eight ball and adds to all the other voices of reason and provable science.

Those hiding the truth are now slowly but inexorably being exposed, MSM will be dragged into exposure and the flood gates of shame will open. I feel no pity for them, well done to the scientists involved.

Well, hello brother! On too many occasions, I had to clean the chicken houses, warehouse size, by shoveling the manure onto a two and a half ton flatbed with sideboards. Usually, we could give it away to local farmers.

By the way, several Whitman families were prominent in my Georgia community. Sadly, I have not kept in touch with them.

Also, with this facet of the ‘climate science ball’ now advancing down the field, and in light of Svenmark’s remarks about most if not all the ‘warming’ that has taken place in the past 100yrs being attributable to this alone, let’s find out how much this really does affect temps. Nothing really settled here though except for the the fact that yes, cosmic rays can likely form particles large enough for condensation nuclei in the lower trop. This would lead mostly to cooling, but let me tell you, stratus layers mean warmth in the winter north of 40N.

Very well written, clear and interesting. My congratulations to Calder.

One point. He says:

Cluster production soars as the temperature goes down, until “almost every negative ion gives rise to a new particle” [i.e. molecular cluster]. The lowest temperature reported in the paper is -25 oC. That corresponds to an altitude of 6000 metres, so unless you wish to visualize a rain of cloud-seeding aerosols from on high, it’s not very relevant to Svensmark’s interest in the lowest 3000 metres.

6000 metres is the mid-troposphere. In the tropics, every thunderstorm is surrounded by a ring of cool descending air. In the tropics this air is frequently descending from well above 6,000 metres, where presumably the same cluster production is going on as well. So yes, the CLOUD results do imply that in the all-important tropics, there could indeed be a rain of cloud-seeding aerosols from on high.

This says that, given less than an already saturated nucleation scenario, Cosmic Rays are fully capable of causing clouds, you just need to have them coming in and the Sun not active.
It also says that a more Active Sun (and Solar Wind as a result) is responsible for reducing/scouring one important source of cloud ingredients.
Any climate model that does not include Cosmic Rays as a significant factor of cloudiness is wrong.
I wonder now, how long will they roadblock the ‘how much under what conditions’ research?
I have long suspected that there is a hysteresis of sorts built into the CR effect, and that this hysteresis distorts the correlations.
Meanwhile, the GCRs remain elevated at the 1970’s cooling period levels, after exceeding them for a few years. A 2nd year of La Nina looms. Will it put the icing on AGW? We’ll soon find out if Hell can freeze over.

Quite an stretch, RGates’ take on positive feedback and Milankovich cycles. The simple fact that warmer oceans outgas CO2 and thus creates a positive feedback is conjecture. we know neither how an iceage starts, nor how it ends. There is no evidence, even today of a positive feedback.
It amuses me, the contortions people make to find correlation between CO2 and temps, but the plain, easy to see correlation between solar activity and temps was ignored by the IPCC and warmists in general.
I remember clearly, before I researched the matter, thinking “well, it must be mostly the sun” But the IPCC insisted that total solar irradiance varied too little to have any impact. As demonstrated time and time again the IPCC was wrong on this as they are about most of their claims.
Clearly there are many things going on and that’s why it’s hard to completely understand. But this discovery goes a long way towards debunking the postive feedback scenario of increased CO2, which is the cornerstone of the AGW theory. A dent, at least a chip, but those chips are adding up very quickly. AGW professionals might want to brush up on your barista skills.

“Let me repeat: The only way Milankovitich cycles can produce the degree of warming they do is through positive feedback loops involving CO2.”
=========
The only way ??
No other possible explanation ?
No doubt in your mind?
Scientists in the future will chuckle at our current theories, and more so at those that proclaimed anything like a certainty.
______
Well, here’s how it shakes out. Take the sum total of forcings during an interglacial period (CO2 levels, plus Milankovitch forcing, plus water vapor, plus methane, plus biosphere activity), and you can pretty much get to the kinds of temperatures seen during these interglacials. And, CO2 is a major part of them. Take away the greenhouse effects of CO2, (suppose for example that CO2 didn’t increase as the Milankovitch cycle started to shift toward more NH warming) and you’d not see much of an interglacial. Just not enough forcing. Milankovitch is the trigger, CO2 is the thermostat.

IN HIS Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelock famously suggested that living organisms could affect clouds – and he was eventually proved right. Now it seems the effect may be even stronger than we thought. Organic vapours released by organisms such as trees, marine bacteria and livestock appear to play a far more important role in cloud formation than suspected.

“This was a big surprise,” says Jasper Kirkby at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, whose team made the finding. Since our activities have such a huge impact on the biosphere, this hints at a previously unknown way in which humans can affect the climate, he says.”

1. Those two bold examples are the only times “human” is used in the article.
2. The italicized example is the only time “our” is used in the article.
3. The two paragraphs don’t even connect. P1 talks about organisms playing a part in cloud formation. P2 talks about “our activities” and “humans” affecting the climate – with NO basis laid before either assertion. How does one go from “trees, marine bacteria and livestock” to “our activities” and “humans” affecting the climate? With NO connective facts or evidence between the two statements, the two sentences might as well read,
4. “This was a big surprise” applies to organisms. The very next sentence – without any groundwork being laid – jumps down humans’ throats.
5. I guess such writing would be pardonable if the connection were made farther on down in the article. I’ve been through it three times, and neither the headline,nor the assertions in P2 are followed up on.
6. The headline ONLY applies to the sans-foundation statements in P2, which is neither explained beforehand nor after P2.

Essentially P1 and P2 say this: “Trees and animals and bacteria were shown to have a huge effect – therefore let’s blame humans for nucleation and cloud formation.” Huh??????

WTF???

Can we say “off topic”?

What the HELL editor would pass such horrendous nonsensical point-making/connecting?

Let’s see if we can be stupid, too:

“Animals are warm or cold-blooded, therefore the Sun is hot.”

“Sunspots have an 11 year cycle, on average, therefore life is like a box of chocolates.”

But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

All commenters should heed this caveat, instead of being victims of confirmation bias.

I want to emphasize and reinforce my last comment. The Warmistas said that the opted for CO2 being the cause for warming because nothing else, including small changes in TSI, explain it, in a linear fashion.

Well, now we know that UV output from the Sun varies more widly than TSI, and now, we learn that the variation of the solar magnetic field also has an impact on cloud generation, as does UV. What is the weakest point in the Warmistas’ argument? Well, clouds! How about that!

The weakest point in the Warmista chain is Albedo … and a VERY small change in daylight cloud cover can change the Earth’s albedo dramatically.

This is why these results are so important. Skewer the Warmistas with this lineof reasoning. They are demonstrted to be NOT omniscient.

… sceptics should not fall into same trap, until the GCRs are shown as the likely principal agent for the natural change; for the moment the link is very tenuous indeed.

I think there is a difference. CO2 as a cause of warming started as a conjecture by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius Svante Arrhenius. The efforts since then have been dedicated to postulating a mechanism and trying to prove that it is right. The mechanism for any significant warming depends on positive feedback. The evidence for positive feedback is tenuous and disputed by Lindzen, Spencer, et al.

Cosmic rays as a cause of warming started with the observation that there seems to be a correlation between sunspots and the climate. The effort since then seems to have been to find and understand the mechanism. The mechanism seems to involve cloud formation and nobody disputes that clouds have a major impact on the climate.

The cosmic ray theory starts out, IMHO, from a much more solid position than does the CO2 theory. Anyway, the importance of the CLOUD experiment is not that it proves the cosmic ray theory (which it really couldn’t do) but that it does not disprove it (which it could). The CLOUD experiment becomes, therefore, part of the body of data that bolsters the cosmic ray theory.

On Curry’s blog Colose was praised by JC as an “undergraduate who’d only taken a few courses in Meteorology but he already get’s it”. I would suggest a career change for this young wannabe….there is NO future in AGW boot licking.

What is missing from this thread is the origin of the SO4 and NH3 that can be ‘cosmic rayed’ into cloud seeding particles. My theory is that SO4, NH3, CH4 and CO2 are all products of Earth’s, variable “cold” fission process that is controlled by cosmic ray bombardments. Details of this theory are explained at http://www.FauxScienceSlayer.com with special interest to “Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux”. The oceans are at maximum saturation of a host of ‘elemental’ gases. These work as refrigerants, condensing at the sea floor outgas vents and evaporating futher up in the water column. There is a one way process of evaporation, always from saturated ocean to the atmosphere. So much real Earth science has sat idle while misdirected governments fished for additional carbon tax revenue streams. Disgusting really.

Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate reviewed this paper by Kirkby very objectively and very comprehensively. What he writes is balanced and raises a number of scientific criteria that need satisfying before the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation can be fully understood.

Also: The New Scientist headline mentioned by Anthony is not a perverse misreading of the CERN result, it’s a completely separate article with a carefully deceptive headline. So far anyway, they haven’t mentioned the CERN result at all.

Perfectly New Stalinist. (After all, their own Trotsky has been the central reporter on the Svensmark work!)

“Let me repeat: The only way Milankovitich cycles can produce the degree of warming they do is through positive feedback loops involving CO2.”
=========
The only way ??
No other possible explanation ?
No doubt in your mind?
Scientists in the future will chuckle at our current theories, and more so at those that proclaimed anything like a certainty.
====================================================
Scientists in the future ?? This scientist (me) has been more than chuckling for a while now in the past and present.

It’s particularly chuckleworthy to see Gatesy well on his way towards shattering his own personal best for amount of inane unsupported drivel posted on a thread.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2011 at 4:53 pm
But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

All commenters should heed this caveat, instead of being victims of confirmation bias.
============
Heed a caveat why, what has been determined ?
Please explain.

R. Gates says, displaying a wonderful ignorance of both science and logic:
August 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm

“… finding a potential connection in ONE of the ways the earth’s climate is regulated somehow negates the effects of another way is suggestive of the kind of desperation that skeptics are showing in trying to disprove AGW.”

The point is, obviously, that if you point to hoofprints in the snow in the woods and claim that it is evidence for the existence of unicorns, and I point to the fact that the woods adjoins a horse farm with some dodgy points in its fence, I am not “disproving the existence of unicorns”, which is in any case impossible. But I am pointing out a fact that makes your hypothesis much less likely to be correct.

Alright! Now we know that galactic cosmic rays create clouds when Sol is less active.
Now let’s find out whether solar flares, coronal mass ejections, proton-laden solar winds or the like cause tropical cyclones.
Go on. Get to work.

Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate reviewed this paper by Kirby very objectively and very comprehensively. What he writes is balanced and raises a number of scientific criteria that need satisfying before the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation can be fully understood.

———–

Ian,

I am really sure Kirby will appreciate the generous guidance from Mr. Schmidt of GISS concerning what is needed for Kirby to continue to study cloud creation via GCRs. Perhaps Kirby will seek counseling from Gavin before taking the next step in cloud research?

Gavin has an aCO2 dog in the climate discourse, so perhaps your claim of Gavin’s very objective stance can be disputed?

Venus absorbs less (high albedo) and I didn’t count Mercury as having an atmosphere (though if you want to be technical, all planets/moons have some molecules bouncing along the surface, though the pressure on Mercury is no greater than something around a trillionth of Earth’s pressure)

There is a long road still to travel, so there is no case for jubilation or depression yet. The way science typically unfolds, a greater combination of possible variable will have to be input and assessed quantitatively. For example, if the experiments to date have started with a ‘clean’ chamber, what can we expect if they are started with a ‘partial cloud formation already’ chamber condition. That is, we have to consider not just nucleation of clouds, but the effect on rate of growth of existing clouds. That’s just one of the many variables that come to mind.

u.k.(us) says:
August 24, 2011 at 5:25 pmHeed a caveat why, what has been determined ?
Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

Not even Kirby will take his result as support for Svensmark: ‘says nothing‘
What is it in nothing you don’t understand?

“Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate reviewed this paper by Kirkby very objectively and very comprehensively. What he writes is balanced and raises a number of scientific criteria that need satisfying before the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation can be fully understood.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate was both objective and comprehensive?
First time for everything…

Warmest congratulations to Prof Svensmark and his team! And to Mr Calder, who has kept us updated while magazines like New Scientist went madly and partisanly warmist.

I’d also like to mention Prof Udipi Rao, past chairman of the Indian Space Agency and cosmic ray physicist, whose paper this year (as covered by Anthony) further supports these findings. Prof Rao was flamed mercilessly by the usual parties, he therefore should be included in the victory.

I would like to see if the Svensmark theory is detectable in the atmosphere of Jupiter. Jupiter has known cloud layers of ammonia as well as its own magnetic field. The influx of cosmic rays from deep space is uniform across the solar system.

“Ian
I am really sure Kirby will appreciate the generous guidance from Mr. Schmidt of GISS concerning what is needed for Kirby to continue to study cloud creation via GCRs. Perhaps Kirby will seek counseling from Gavin before taking the next step in cloud research?
Gavin has an aCO2 dog in the climate discourse, so perhaps your claim of Gavin’s very objective stance can be disputed?”

I am very well aware of the affiliations and attitudes of Dr. Schmidt to climate change having been moderated off Real Climate on many an occasion. However to make an ad hominem attack (in this case on Dr Schmidt) is one of the things frowned on by WUWT. Dr Schmidt did make some very objective statements which, if you read what he writes, are remarkably free from bias. I have no particular brief either for Real Climate or Dr Schmidt being more a sceptic than an alarmist but I am sufficiently well versed in science (I have a PhD in Endocrinology) to appreciate what others write even if (and scientifically especially even if) I may not agree with all of their philosophies on a particular issue

Paul Linsay says:
August 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm
originally developed in 1911 for “studying cloud formation and optical phenomena in moist air”.
And the CERN result is no more than a repeat of that.”
*****
I had some respect for you until you made this statement. That’s bunk.

Jim says:
August 24, 2011 at 6:15 pm“And the CERN result is no more than a repeat of that.”
That’s bunk.
And it way way is it more? Wilson showed that ionizing radiation could work as nucleation centers for ‘clouds’. What Kirby showed was even less than that, namely that “the particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds”. So, where is the bunk?

“Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.”

Let us not fall into the trap of looking at the work of Kirby and Svensmark as if its only purpose is to disprove CAGW. The science is first rate and, unlike almost everything else in climate science, satisfies all the criteria of scientific method. There are genuine physical hypotheses, genuine predictions, and genuine confirmations of those predictions. It opens investigations into connections among cosmic rays and cloud behavior. These connections must be pursued. In case you are wondering, I agree that the work does not disprove CAGW. However, it might lead to a major revision in accounts of climate change and, if so, it will do so on a rock solid scientific basis.

I would respectfully refer Leif Svalgaard, who says at August 24, 2011 at 4:53 pm

“But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

All commenters should heed this caveat, instead of being victims of confirmation bias.”

to my earlier comment. (Phil’s Dad: August 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm)

The paper, on which Kirkby is lead author, says: “…the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions experimentally”

Is it not then incorrect for Kirkby to (be implicated to) say, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds, when he has published that he does not know this? Remember it is a journalist interpretation rather than his own words.

If I were to employ the same journalistic integrity I might suggest, given the history of this particular paper and the way the author has been treated in the past, that what he meant was “At the moment, I am allowed to say nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it (getting published) is a very important first step.”

R. Gates says, displaying a wonderful ignorance of both science and logic:
August 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm

“… finding a potential connection in ONE of the ways the earth’s climate is regulated somehow negates the effects of another way is suggestive of the kind of desperation that skeptics are showing in trying to disprove AGW.”

Actually, neither R. Gates nor anybody that I’m aware of (including aliens from space) has or have proven AGW. They’re continually going on and on and on and on about how skeptics haven’t disproven AGW when there’s nothing they’ve got that needs disproving.

Their’s is a slippery, diabolical slope indeed! They’re completely befuddled and they take it out on people that simply point out their befuddlement.

Now all we need to do is put up a few satellites to artificially hit the upper atmosphere with Anthropogenic Generated Cosmic Rays to make more clouds thus cooling the earth and bringing more rain to arid parts. Problem solved. Divert all climate study grants to producing AGCR or Anthropogenic Global Cosmic Rays.

I am very well aware of the affiliations and attitudes of Dr. Schmidt to climate change having been moderated off Real Climate on many an occasion. However to make an ad hominem attack (in this case on Dr Schmidt) is one of the things frowned on by WUWT. Dr Schmidt did make some very objective statements which, if you read what he writes, are remarkably free from bias. I have no particular brief either for Real Climate or Dr Schmidt being more a sceptic than an alarmist but I am sufficiently well versed in science (I have a PhD in Endocrinology) to appreciate what others write even if (and scientifically especially even if) I may not agree with all of their philosophies on a particular issue.

————————-

Ian,

Well said. I thank you for your comment.

RC’s Gavin has not sustained my respect about scientific openness and appearance of integrity. Life is short, he has not earned the respect to even be given my time when there are so many other sources who frankly I think exist in a greater scientific universe. Gavin may say something with regards to the Kirby et al paper. OK. If I get to the bottom of my list of people whose scientific judgment I value more that Gavin, then I might read what he has to say. It is unlikely that I will get to the bottom of my list though. However, if a scientist whom I value does make a comment about what Gavin says then I will go read Gavin.

“Since there is no trend in cosmic radiation over the last 50 years, it is simply not possible for changes in cosmic radiation to have caused the trend in global temperatures. ”

I believe more than one warmist paper rejected Svnesmark’s theory based on just this idea. Unfortunately they IGNORED Svensmark’s actual Theory that states high energy GCR’s, not the lower energy ones common to the sun and background.

There ARE noticeable changes in the levels of the targeted high energy GCR’s. Of course, it hasn’t been since the early 1900’s we have seen this low of a solar output and the possibility of measuring what a significant change would be.

In high school in 1957 my physics teacher should the paths of various particles given off by radioactive material in a “cloud chamber” (Wilson Chamber) He was repeating an experiment performed in the 20’s. Each of the ionizing particles caused a track similar to an airplane contrail, and we are just know connecting the dots? It seems to me intuitively obvious that ionizing particles will seed clouds. How did man ever get this far with such stupidity?

Empiricism, over a brace of centuries, has observed that low sunspot activity has coincided with periods of less than optimum human comfort.
Ok, happenstance and coincidence don’t often make for ideal bed-fellows but they may do.
For over half a decade now we’ve been bombarded with ridicule that told us that solar influence was an irrelevance. The Sun was a bit player and only Anthropogenic emissions mattered. Today we ‘learn’ that Sol may just. perhaps and maybe, play a part.
We were assured that just CO2 mattered and that only puritanical, government control could save our Grandkiddies from early Hell. Pre-normal Science has given us an alternative viewpoint on this perspective but will it be sufficient to modify mindsets?
Guess 1- No it won’t – why let facts get in the way of fantasy?
Guess 2- See Guess 1

All commenters should heed this caveat, instead of being victims of confirmation bias.

Ahhh Yes. Svalgaard. The epitome of objectivity. Speak of the data from the last few decades supporting how constant TSI has been and the extrapolate that back through the eons, and you’re on very firm footing. Mention this article and it’s potential for changing paradigm of GHG alarmism and you are some slavering fool.
Very nice Leif.

“There are always traces of ammonia in the real air, and according to the CLOUD report you need only one molecule in 30 billion. If that helps to oil Svensmark’s climatic motor, it’s good to know, but it calls for no apologies and alters the climatic implications not a jot.”

How can a trace element have such a large effect. where have I heard the argument against “trace” amounts before.

Anyway, take care arguing against an effect merely the particles involved are in “trace” amounts.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 24, 2011 at 6:43 pmLet us not fall into the trap of looking at the work of Kirby and Svensmark as if its only purpose is to disprove CAGW.
Its purpose was to show that Svensmark’s theory is plausible. We have known for a 100 years that ionizing particles can work as seed for clouds, so getting to some of details can be important. As Kirby points out they are not there yet and their results “actually say nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate”, so should not be taken as they actually did.

The science is first rate
Undoubtedly, but the wild claims and jubilation from certain quarters are not.

Eric Barnes says:
August 24, 2011 at 8:00 pmMention this article and it’s potential for changing paradigm of GHG alarmism
As Kirby says the results “actually say nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate”, the potential seems rather low. And don’t think for a minute that any rabid Alarmist would be convinced. Of course, when Kirby preaches to the choir, he gets applause.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2011 at 5:56 pm
u.k.(us) says:
August 24, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Heed a caveat why, what has been determined ?
Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

Not even Kirby will take his result as support for Svensmark: ‘says nothing‘
What is it in nothing you don’t understand?
==========
Forget Kirby and Svensmark, it sounds like you have something to tell me, I await with bated breath, tell me what I don’t understand.
I understand it starts with NOTHING, please proceed.

Next step: can the chemistry of the polar (esp the Antarctic) spring ozone holes be re-investigated? Is it really man-made CFC’s or is it …. cosmic rays, or even Solar wind particles? Clouds are involved!

Now, the fact that I’ve got no problems seeing the full scale and spectrum of forcings that can affect the earth’s climate, with CO2 being just part of the equation…how does that make me a hypocrite?

If you have no problem seeing the full scale and spectrum of forcings, I guess we’ll call you God? All hail the omniscient Gates! Clearly you just declared your ability to see the full scale of forcings, so what other explanation is there? Tell us, Gates the full-scale-all-seeing, what are the primary drivers of earth climate, and to what order in the gigantic PDE do we assign them? Also, please tell us our starting conditions and boundary conditions.

Your very language implies an understanding that is humanly impossible. Where is the humility? Where is the excitement at all new knowledge of climate regardless of abstraction? It’s telling, though, that now it’s acceptable for you to mention how supremely balanced you are in seeing all forcings, now that the CERN result is out that is.

As you have no idea who I am or what I believe, I’ll forgive your ignorance this one time. But your suggestion that finding a potential connection in ONE of the ways the earth’s climate is regulated somehow negates the effects of another way is suggestive of the kind of desperation that skeptics are showing in trying to disprove AGW.

Thank you so much for forgiving my ignorance, great and powerful diviner of climate!

As to finding a link about one aspect of climate suggesting it dominates all other forcings by negating them… well isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black. I seem to recall this big deal we’ve had in the press lately, about how CO2 dominates everything… amazingly narrow-minded stuff, you might want to catch up on it to get the full history of how we arrived at today.

u.k.(us) says:
August 24, 2011 at 8:23 pm“Not even Kirby will take his result as support for Svensmark: ‘says nothing‘”
I understand it starts with NOTHING, please proceed.
‘nothing’ was actually the 13th word. Take it from here. You can figure it out if you try.

Far beyond a troll, on here, he/she has consistently demonstrated over many many hours days and months, a complete and sometimes completely illogical intransigence to admitting right or wrong.

It is like talking to an atheist totalitarian government official or a religious fundamentalist…in either case in either extreme…both are circular reasoning on steroids and not worth the time of day for conversation.

Back to topic this CERN news is very telling and interesting and groundbreaking.

Why does anyone on either side of this issue believe that the feedback coefficient is constant in a non-linear deterministically chaotic system. In other words, why do you or anyone believe that a suggested feedback value when exiting an ice age tells us anything about what it is now?

Steven Mosher says:
August 24, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“There are always traces of ammonia in the real air, and according to the CLOUD report you need only one molecule in 30 billion. If that helps to oil Svensmark’s climatic motor, it’s good to know, but it calls for no apologies and alters the climatic implications not a jot.”

How can a trace element have such a large effect. where have I heard the argument against “trace” amounts before.

Anyway, take care arguing against an effect merely the particles involved are in “trace” amounts.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Depends where the chemistry or physics is on the logarithmic curve. CO2s position is well established as a Beer’s Law-confined trace component of the atmosphere.

Trace effects caused by GCRs, as far as I can tell, could be at the lower end of THEIR logarithmic curve, such that their changes of amplitude give essentially linear catalytic effects. Trace but linear positive is way more powerful than trace but negatively logarithmic.

….. especially when the “trace but negatively logarithmic” is close to being maxed out.

@Leif Svalgaard,
Last year I distinctly recall you stating CLOUD would not result in supporting Svensmark’s hypothesis in any way, and that was not the same as what you are comparing to Jasper Kirkby now. You said the results would fail. Unfortunately I didn’t bookmark it. You have ridiculed him from day one relentlessly however as any WUWT dedicated reader knows. Now after the fact you say we’ve known for 100 years this phenomenon exists, although this thread is not the first time. So why do the experiment then? We’ve been told for years there was no physical mechanism or laboratory experiment that supported Svensmark et al, but you say there was for 100 years. I’m calling BS and that you are in CYA mode. What you are suggesting is this experiment was a waste of resources then and those well qualified scientists carrying out said project are a bunch of bumbling idiots. Such hubris.

There are multiple research papers that link solar activity to river flow and lake levels, but of course you always invoke ‘correlation is not causation’, which is true but then again causation must have correlation.

There is ZERO direct evidence that CO2 is responsible for late 20th century warming, but we’re told it is based on “basic physics”. Ha! Here we have an experiment to test a hypothesis; a new “law” as Feynman would call it. It is another step.

Considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been
made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically-plausible link between
cosmic rays, clouds and climate. However, a concerted effort is now required to carry outdefinitive laboratory measurements of the fundamental physical and chemical processes involved, and to evaluate their climatic significance with dedicated field observations and modelling studies.

and

Despite these uncertainties, the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change. Real progress on the cosmic ray-climate question will require a physical mechanism to be established, or else ruled out. With new experiments planned or underway, such as the CLOUD facility at CERN, there are good prospects that we will have some firm answers to this question within the next few years.

That doesn’t sound like NOTHING to me, and I suspect Kirkby is being overcautious for some reason. Have you considered he may have been instructed to? Too bad those scientists who are lead authors and expert reviewers of their own work at IPCC don’t apply same the same professional integrity.

We are witnessing Arthur Schopenhauer’s axiom in real time.

BTW, has Arrhenius hypothesis ever been tested or replicated? When, where and who? Is earth “just like a real glass greenhouse”?

It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post.

Since the graph is posted at the bottom of the post here in WUWT, I suggest you insert a comment to that effect in the text.

More info from the New Scientist article – any view on this?Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed – the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds

savethesharks says:
August 24, 2011 at 9:07 pm
“It is like talking to an atheist totalitarian government official or a religious fundamentalist…”
=============
Well said, yet R. Gates does, if nothing else, keep things in perspective.

I’m very much impressed by your vitality, since for many of you this is early in the morning or late into midnight.
I’ve been enjoying/learning from your discussion in the midst of the day (now 13:35 Thursday). Thanks.

Bruce of Newcastle says:
August 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm
“Warmest congratulations to Prof Svensmark and his team! And to Mr Calder, who has kept us updated while magazines like New Scientist went madly and partisanly warmist.
I’d also like to mention Prof Udipi Rao, past chairman of the Indian Space Agency and cosmic ray physicist, whose paper this year (as covered by Anthony) further supports these findings. Prof Rao was flamed mercilessly by the usual parties, he therefore should be included in the victory.”

“Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate reviewed this paper by Kirkby very objectively and very comprehensively. What he writes is balanced and raises a number of scientific criteria that need satisfying before the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation can be fully understood ”

Does Gavin get a special advanced preview of the paper from his mates at Nature ? Since publication was yesterday it would seem amazing that he reviewed the paper ” very objectively and comprehensively ” in less than 24 hrs. Sorry I forgot Nature is part of the Team . sarc off/

feet2thefire says:
August 24, 2011 at 4:50 pmYeah, Anthony, about the New Scientist article, which begins:

Cloud-making: Another human effect on the climate

IN HIS Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelock famously suggested that living organisms could affect clouds – and he was eventually proved right. Now it seems the effect may be even stronger than we thought. Organic vapours released by organisms such as trees, marine bacteria and livestock appear to play a far more important role in cloud formation than suspected.

“This was a big surprise,” says Jasper Kirkby at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland, whose team made the finding. Since our activities have such a huge impact on the biosphere, this hints at a previously unknown way in which humans can affect the climate, he says.”

1. Those two bold examples are the only times “human” is used in the article.
2. The italicized example is the only time “our” is used in the article.
3. The two paragraphs don’t even connect. P1 talks about organisms playing a part in cloud formation. P2 talks about “our activities” and “humans” affecting the climate – with NO basis laid before either assertion. How does one go from “trees, marine bacteria and livestock” to “our activities” and “humans” affecting the climate? With NO connective facts or evidence between the two statements, the two sentences might as well read,
4. “This was a big surprise” applies to organisms. The very next sentence – without any groundwork being laid – jumps down humans’ throats.
5. I guess such writing would be pardonable if the connection were made farther on down in the article. I’ve been through it three times, and neither the headline,nor the assertions in P2 are followed up on.
6. The headline ONLY applies to the sans-foundation statements in P2, which is neither explained beforehand nor after P2.

Essentially P1 and P2 say this: “Trees and animals and bacteria were shown to have a huge effect – therefore let’s blame humans for nucleation and cloud formation.” Huh??????

WTF???

Can we say “off topic”?

What the HELL editor would pass such horrendous nonsensical point-making/connecting?

Let’s see if we can be stupid, too:

“Animals are warm or cold-blooded, therefore the Sun is hot.”

“Sunspots have an 11 year cycle, on average, therefore life is like a box of chocolates.”

Opponents of Svensmark like to use the neutron flux as an index of cosmic rays, to point to trends not correlating with climate. Very convenient, since neutrons, being neutral, are unaffected by charged particle solar wind or by magnetic fields, key players in the Svensmark hypothesis. Neutron flux is irrelevant to this discussion.

This is great news. Right? Oh wait. Not if you believe that the entire world’s temperature is controlled by an essential, nonpoisonous gas that makes up less than a percent of the atmosphere and which every plant craves.

Here is a new version of a poem I wrote some years ago – Enjoy!
_________________________________________

To Invent Armageddon

When software can model worlds ending in flame,
While Hansen and Gore paint brushstrokes of blame,
And other false prophets scream, “GREEN” in their name,
We all drive around in our carbon-mobiles,
immersed in the guilt of spinning our wheels,
Intent on respecting all life on the planet,
So billions are spent demonizing a trace gas…

Warming and cooling are twins of the world,
But one twin is cruel and one twin is good.
You’d know the cruel one if you saw his work,
When fog freezes flesh and wolves howl in the murk,
When the Vikings were booted from Greenland’s embrace,
And the so-called “little ice-age” tried it’s best to erase
All that we made that the warm winds delivered,
As the darkness descended, we froze and we shivered,
Awaiting the warming that came far too slow
For the millions that starved, crops frozen in snow.

The globe still recovers and glaciers still melt,
And though a chill in the air can almost be felt,
There’s nothing more normal than warming that’s global,
Despite Chicken Littles droning on about weather
And whether or not science daring to question
Their dogma is legal, and should even be mentioned,
Their hockey-stick lies tilt mad at the skies,
To invent armageddon, true science DIES…

Will someone please pass this along to Mr Revkin? Its time to rely on honest science and stop sipping and pouring the political nectar of a perceived, but non-existent physical state and system. Let’s encourage people to stop the naysaying about actual, data based science inquiry, and wake up. Unless, of course, some of the the MSM (have bought into the political issue of reducing oil dependency at all cost) have bought into the junk science to advance personal political goals under the guise of “science”. Mr Revkin? It will crumble.
—
Theo Goodwin says:
August 24, 2011 at 11:20 am
Wonderful article. The great benefits that will come from the work of this team and Svensmark include the fact that this is genuine science, conducted entirely within the standards of scientific method, that Svensmark and friends are really good explicators of their work for the common person, unlike everyone who is a “mainstream climate scientist,” and that the public will get to learn the difference between genuine science and what the MSM has passed off as science.

Also, there is the small matter of the politicians who jumped on the “global warming” bandwagon and the settled science who will now learn that the science wasn’t settled.

This is how you turn what should have been a real barn-burner into a yawn-fest. Maybe in the end it will be best that solid science does NOT blast into the popular media with dramatic headlines. That’s the thing that corrupted what science there was behind AGW theory in its infancy into the caricature it has become.

It implicitly assumes that global surface temperature responds instantaneously to a change in a forcing. That isn’t the way climate works. The earth’s thermosphere is three dimensional, far more massive than its two dimensional surface layer, and the largest components of those enormous masses are mobile in all three of those dimensions. The people who made that fallacious arguement understand this. They are simply dishonest, and betting that they will get away with it.

@- phlogiston says:
“Opponents of Svensmark like to use the neutron flux as an index of cosmic rays, to point to trends not correlating with climate. Very convenient, since neutrons, being neutral, are unaffected by charged particle solar wind or by magnetic fields,”

The flux detected by neutron detectors reflects the total cosmic ray flux including the majority of charged muons.
Thats why it shows the variations in step with the solar cycle and smaller changes in response to geomagnetic variations.

So this experiment shows cosmic rays have no effect at low altitudes and only ~15% change at high altitudes when switched on and off. And then only of nuclei far too small to cause cloud condensation.
But cosmic ray variation is only around 10%-20%, so it would only alter the rate of formation of these small nuclei by a few percent.

The real result from this is that organic compounds are the dominant factor, cosmics are a sideshow.

“Update: Bizarrely, New Scientist headlines with: Cloud-making: Another human effect on the climate”

Well, one of the results of the experiments is that another vapor besides the ones that were included in the test (sulphuric acid, water and ammonia) is necessary cloud formation. According to dr. Kirkby this vapor is either natural or man-made in origin. Since most likely clouds were present before humans were walking on this earth, I consider it more likely that it is natural in origin.

commieBob says:
…………..
Number of points:
– The Earth’s magnetic field (gmf) is far stronger modulator of GCRs then the heliospheric mf (protects the Earth from deadly radiation from both the sun and the cosmic rays).
– Since 1800 the gmf lost about 10% of its strength, so the GCR count should have strongly gone up ( and clouds).
– The gmf intensity moves in the opposite direction to the solar mf: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC9.htm
– There is a good correlation between temperature movements and the gmf: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm , http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-dBz.htm (CO2 correlation can be safely ignored as you can see in the graph) and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
So, if there is a GCR-climate link than the feedback is positive (clouds also have warming effect, prevent heat escape particularly at night and winter).
Despite all of the above, I think that the GCR count is too low (unless there is some kind of ‘chain reaction’ within cloud formation process) to make any significant difference.
Some time ago I wrote to Svensmark asking for a comment on the stronger modulation by the gmf since 1800, but never got a reply.

Perhaps a short-cut to finding the next steps from an increase in droplet precursors caused by GCRs to clouds could be found in the historical information about the after effects of aerial nuclear bomb tests?

I’m not defending or objecting to any particular viewpoint here, but I find the owner of the blog taking pot-shots at a contributor via a “REPLY:” within the comment as over-stepping the mark of what is fair and reasonable.

It’s Anthony’s blog. He can do what he likes. So can Gavin Schmidt on his blog. But Schmidt’s behaviour makes his blog useless for serious discussion, Anthony’s policies let everyone have a say.

I thought AGW was dead when, in the mid naughties, the Aqua satellite system failed to find the tropospheric heat island which I had been led to believe would be a required symptom of runaway global warming. However instead of being happy that the climate was not storing heat in the troposphere, thus preventing heat escaping from the surface, the cAGW alarmists then stated that they never claimed a tropospheric heat island was necessary.

Since then as more and more measurements poked more and more holes in the cAGW runaway warming theory, the more the cAGW alarmists have jumped on other unrelated events as evidence that it is “worse than we thought”. They ignore sea level rise slowing; actual temperatures levelling off; the examination and revelation as to the “hockey team’s” less than scientific method; tree rings being a terrible proxy for temperature; the Yamal tree YADO61; measurements showing the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is low; the acceptance that there is no arctic ice melt tipping point and now this…

This will not kill the cAGW belief. I guess at this stage that it would take the onset of a full blown ice age to do that, and although the onset of that ice-age will be blamed on man, the extent of the ice sheets will kill off so many people that it will no longer be an issue.

Well done but actually I knew this years ago, if you get the DVD The Great Global Warming Swindle, on one of the extras there is a report about this, and why anchovies and sardine numbers varied around Canada (I think) it was because of the amount of fresh (rain water) water that poured into the sea and the fish moved on to better places. Solar activity prevents cosmic rays coming in contact with atmospheric water molecules they deflect them. This has been going on for millions of years. Why deserts are hot during the day and cold at night because there are no clouds. And when there is cloud cover frost doesn’t form. So are the climate mad scientist going to suggest we put on space suits to prevent cosmic rays hitting our bodies. That astronauts have already said that cosmic rays penetrate their space suits. Should we tell our
respective politicians that cutting carbon emissions will not change the climate. It’s just the same
as King Canute knew before getting his feet wet. Oh you got a mention on the ABC ‘Anthony Watts ex weatherman with no tertiary qualifications’ Even the ‘infamous’ Joanne Nova got a mention.. I’ll grab the website and post it to you.

Well done Anthony. I am not sure if I posted my last comment or not. Anyway, I’ve known this for years it was featured on the DVD ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ as a special feature so I don’t know if it still on YouTube. They did a survey about the anchovy and sardine fishing around Canada and why some years they were around and others they weren’t. They said that cosmic
rays were deflected from combining with water molecules and forming clouds, hence less rain that
made its way to the sea influencing shoals of fish seeking saltier water.
Should we inform the appropriate authorities of CERNs announcement? LOL.
Also you got a mention on ABC as ‘The ex weatherman with no tertiary qualifications’ even dear
and ‘infamous’ Joanne Nova got a mention or two. I’ll post the site to you when I find it again.

“More info from the New Scientist article – any view on this?
Other evidence shows that even if cosmic rays do affect the climate, the effect must be small. Changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed – the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds”

Well that tells me all I need to know about the New Scientist then.

Yes average GCR counts have started increasing since 1985, but they were still high relative to the quieter solar cycles in from the past (until the last minimum). Consider a radiator warming a room from a cool base, but turned up high. Then the radiator is turned down very slightly. The room will most likely continue to warm at a lower rate, until some kind of equilibrium is reached; throw the oceans into the mix and you have a pretty good representation of what’s been happening with our climate. It certainly doesn’t fit with CO2 as a climate driver anyway.

Lets try http://calderup.wordpress.com/ to see the graph so we can make our own minds up and not allow Nature to lead us by the nose. Nature has been responsible for some outrageous nosebleeds of late!

Dr. Svensmark deserves two Nobel Prizes, one for his discovery and the second for persistance.

It is obvious that the sun has a major impact on climate it was the exact mechanism that needed to be unravelled. Dr. Svensmark and his team, despite lack of money and facilities, worked to find the truth.

Well done. But more work is needed to get this discovery into the main stream of science so the stupidity of AGW can be long forgotten.

I think this is a great result, as it opens up the opportunity for further experiment and study of a possible role for GCRs in cloud formation. Even if it doesn’t prove anything, it doesn’t refute Svensmark’s theory, either. It is one more step forward.

And by the way, Leif Svaalgard, don’t be such a killjoy. I still think there is reason for cheerful acceptance of the result here, and that is not necessarily a proof of confirmation bias. I won’t overreact, but I can be cheerful about this.

I look forward to the models being reformulated to take account of this finding. It means not only that more cosmic rays will cause more effect but that more cosmic ray collisions will produce more effect so recasting through Pinatubo and other global and regional aerosol changes over time will take on a new significance.

If this isn’t the final nail in the coffin for CAGW, I don’t know what is.

Svensmark deserves a Nobel Price, but only after the ones of Gore and Pachauri are taken back.

The endgame has finally started. Victory is near!!!

It’s another arrow in the elephant. It is surely going to tone down implications in much of the msm that the science is settled and only deniers deny it. Segments of the msm will start hedging more, not wanting to be on the wrong side of history.

At year-end, or maybe sooner, I hope there’ll be a thread here that lists the important “hits” the elephant has taken this year. (E.g., Spencer’s paper, Lindzen’s paper, etc.)

I’ve not read all of this (yet) but, has anyone followed Mr Colose’s links?
They’re all pretty well inter-related (only one real source) andone of the abstracts reads:— (my emphasis)

In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ion-aerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties;

Opponents of Svensmark like to use the neutron flux as an index of cosmic rays, to point to trends not correlating with climate. Very convenient, since neutrons, being neutral, are unaffected by charged particle solar wind or by magnetic fields, key players in the Svensmark hypothesis. Neutron flux is irrelevant to this discussion.
—————–
You are confused. The neutrons are the result of the collision of primary cosmic rays (mainly protons) with atoms in the atmosphere.

If the neutron flux was unaffected by magnetic fields, why does it show a cycles at solar frequencies?

It’s easy for the Americans to wonder why Nigel Calder is so bitter. But, see: Europe is crippled by Kyoto and the crazy 20:20:20 initiative of the EU; Europe’s rulers (the unelected EU Commissioners) and nearly all ruling parties of the member states are warmists (with the notable exceptions of Czechia and maybe Poland). This continent is run by mad people; and elections don’t provide a remedy as all the parties try to out-green each other. If you think the Chevy Volt is an expensive failure of your government pork schemes, you’re welcome, we have projects like that in the EU all over the place, too many to mention. It’s the biggest theft in history. All of this has been driven by the AGW science movement. One could actually have done something useful with all the money, for instance leave it in people’s pockets.

The EU is going to be history in short order. What we are witnessing is the final failure of socialism. USSR has already failed, now the ‘nice’ socialists are falling apart. You simply cannot run a society with fantasy economics because eventually someone will demand payment for the bills. AGW was only an attempt to get more taxes out of everyone and now it, because it is based on a fantasy, will go by the wayside. Funding for all science is going to get fairly dicey, as all government spending will.

Folks, we’re out of money. We will either cut spending voluntarily, or have it cut with monstrous inflation rates. Right now, I don’t know which way the American experiment in socialism is going to go. Time will tell. Either way, its going to be painful for a lot of people. Addictions always are, whether it kills you or you recover.

Meanwhile, I’m going to sit back and enjoy this science on GCR effects on our climate unfold.

Great posting and came when I was wondering when we were going to get an update on CLOUD. Wonderful article.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Robert of Ottawa says:
August 24, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Well, now we know that UV output from the Sun varies more widly than TSI
UV is but a small fraction of TSI.
+++++++\
Yes Leif, it is a small fraction, but the UV interacts with particles that are not visible in the human-detectable spectrum of light. Visible light interacts with particles down to 0.1 microns. When satellites take photos of clouds, they use visible light, but there are vast clouds of particles that reflect UV light which cannot be seen in a standard photograph or camera.

The albedo of the Earth changes much more in the UB spectrum than in the visible one. The argument that TSI dose not change much is a mis-direction. It changes in an important portion of the spectrum (by a factor of about 100) and there is a substantial result: interaction with particles in the air smaller than 0.1 microns. These particles would look white if we could detect UV with our eyes, but they remain invisible and it has been presumed all along that these clouds are not present.

I have checked the spectra that are used to make assessments of albedo and though the UV data is collected by satellite, the high frequency portion is consistently omitted from the assessment – much to my surprise. The absence of any recognition that there are significant invisible (and variable) clouds of small particles shading the Earth is a gap that must be corrected.

The GCR-induced particles (CCN’s) have been studied along with cloud formation by all sorts of people. This claim they do not produce drops – visible ones – is poppycock and I think they well know it. It is obfuscation. Beyond admitting that there is a clear causal relationship between CCN and cloud formation, they should admit the existence of off-the-scope clouds that interact well with the very solar spectra that are the most variable.

Well said, I was lost for words about this imbecilic New Scientist diatribe. The magazine has descended still lower into incoherent nonsensical AGW-fanaticism. Very sad.
——————————————————————————
Around 25 years ago, my best friend, a post-doc at Stanford at the time, had a subscription to this POS (I had more sense than to actually pay for it myself). He would pass the issues along to me to read.

It actually was about as crap back then, believe it or not. The meme then was “British scientists discover X and Y”, which was actually a translation to “Underfunded British scientists read paper by Nobel Prize-winning American scientists and understood it enough to tell us what it was about”.

It “caters to” that whole (large) group of highly educated British folk who could have been professional career scientists if there had been enough jobs in science to employ them. Kinda sad really.

Why it has morphed into the New Lysenkoist is puzzling, although I suspect it has something to do with money changing hands.

Chris Colose – August 24, 2011 at 1:04 pm
The first link you gave leads to a paper by Sloan & Wolfendale — Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Included in the abstract is the following:
“From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.”
I’m not sure how this necessarily shows that Svensmark’s ideas are “too small to matter”.
The second link is to Pierce & Adams — Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?
Their results are based on a model which tells us nothing, especially in view of the fact that Svensmark’s work and the CLOUD results are from observation and experimentation.
Neither of these papers has, at first sight, sufficient validity to dismiss the cosmic ray hypothesis out of hand.

I should have thought that as the owner of a(n) (apparently unpopular, certainly shy of postings, comments and visitors) blog, you, of all people, would appreciate that. You don’t like it here? Go forth and multiply.

If this isn’t the final nail in the coffin for CAGW, I don’t know what is.Svensmark deserves a Nobel Price, but only after the ones of Gore and Pachauri are taken back.

The endgame has finally started. Victory is near!!!
****************************************************************************************************************************

Jaspar Kirby himself states these experimental results show us nothing about cosmic ray effect on climate………..

“Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten.

Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.”

I’ve just been looking at the media response and the way this piece has been leaked to all the “warmist” media ahead of any that hold a sceptical position is the height of hypocrisy at CERN.

They were the one who said they didn’t want to politicise it … QUITE CLEARLY THE RELEASE OF THIS RESEARCH HAS BEEN HEAVILY PUMP-PRIMED IN THE WARMIST MEDIA WITH A VERY OBVIOUS STALINIST-TYPE PARTY LINE: nothing to see here … move along.

If I worked at CERN I would be disgusted with the overt politicisation in the release of this research … all the worse because the head of CERN explicitly stated that no CERN employees should comment to avoid precisely the policitisiation which those releasing the research seemed to have participated in.

If you get the DVD ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ on the special features section the anchovy and sardines fluctuation is explained there. But I promised Anthony I now have the article where you are mentioned along with Joanne Nova. It’s connected to the Convoy of No Confidence rally in Canberra. Some of the snide comments have been woeful. Minister Combet announced to the National Press club it was a convoy of no consequence. Another Brown the Green said it was a rally of wingers and no hopers. And one minister called in a convoy of incontinence (can’t control their pee). It was a terrible insult for the thousands who supported this convoy. They travelled from all over Australia, with crowds waving them on. And those that backed them in spirit at least are now considered no hopers and incontinent by some government ministers and journalists.
The site where you are mentioned ishttp://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2850098.html.
Have fun replying eh. I got this link from Joanne Nova’s site. The GGWswindle is on UTube by the way, but I am not sure if the section on the anchovy/sardines and cosmic rays and clouds is there too. I’ll take a look.

Let us now assume for one moment that the positive feedback claimed for aCO2 is unity – the CERN result allows us to speculate that that could be the case – and tackle this misnomer ‘greenhouse gas’ with its entirely negative connotations: no atmospheric gas of any stripe acts in exactly the way a greenhouse does.

I propose we call the effect STIR – semi transparency to irradience. That semi-transparency is in both incoming and outgoing directions and leads to a delay in the heating effects of solar irradiance leaving the atmosphere. That was how the phenomenon was taught in 1964 and I see no reason to accept a different explanation. So, a STIR index could be constructed and each gas given a relative value which when multiplied by its concentration would give its absolute value.

There may of course be some +/- feedbacks yet to be confirmed once we better understand the role of each gas, particles injected and particles created in the atmosphere. This study could be left to atmospheric scientists and other established disciplines to understand. Climatology can then be eased toward those other ologies of phren etc. where its natural home is.

“Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get.”

Every set of tastebuds on this planet are wired a little differently. Little wonder we disagree on how sweet, sour, bitter, the same thing is. Hummmmm… think it’s possible we’re all right? I mean “correct”. (And “OK”?;-) As with Art, Science is in the Eye of the Beholder. Enjoy the moment for whatever you think it’s worth, it too will pass.

“…Far beyond a troll, on here, he/she has consistently demonstrated over many many hours days and months, a complete and sometimes completely illogical intransigence to admitting right or wrong.

It is like talking to an atheist totalitarian government official or a religious fundamentalist…in either case in either extreme…both are circular reasoning on steroids and not worth the time of day for conversation.“…
_________________________________________________________________________
I’ve come to view the initial “R.” as standing for “Robert”, as in: “Baghdad Bob”.
The person is either a consummate professional propagandist/P.R. flack engaged in fighting fires in the media, or they are completely incapable of facing the truths of the world.

Go for it, R. Gates. Run down that road as far as you can.
Strap yourself in, though: when you inevitably begin to face the truth, the ride will likely become a very bumpy one, for a time.
That’s ok- the destination will be well worth it.

There ARE noticeable changes in the levels of the targeted high energy GCR’s. Of course, it hasn’t been since the early 1900′s we have seen this low of a solar output and the possibility of measuring what a significant change would be.
————–
Changes in level or trends? And please link to the data.

This thread has been inundated by trolls all claiming the paper by Kirkby et al. does not affect the validity of the AGW-hypothesis.

In one sense that are right because the AGW-hypothesis has yet to obtain any empirical validation and, therefore, it has no validity. Indeed, this is why it remains an hypothesis: it could be said to be a conjecture but it certainly cannot be claimed to be a theory.

However, the paper by Kirkby et al. demolishes the two main arguments used by proponents of the AGW-hypothesis. Both these arguments are logical fallacies, but ‘warmists’ believe in them so disproof of them is important in debate of the AGW-hypothesis.

Firstly, ‘warmists’ say, “Greenhouse gases (GHGs) must have caused the warming because we cannot think of anything else that could have.” Indeed, R Gates has repeatedly used this argument in this thread where he argues that GHGs must have caused transition from the last Ice Age (e.g. see his post at August 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm).

But this logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ has always been a tool of people with an agenda (e.g. those who said, “Witches must have caused the crop failures because we cannot think of anything else that could have.” ).

The paper of Kirkby et al. provides a complete rebuttal of the logical fallacy: now it can be rejected by saying, “But we do know that changes to cloud cover induced by GCRs could have caused the warming so there is no need to invoke the AGW-hypothesis”.

Secondly, ‘warmists’ say, “You need to provide an alternative theory if you don’t want to accept the AGW-hypothesis.”

But this, too, is a logical fallacy. Proving one thing is wrong does not require an ability to show something else is right: otherwise it would be impossible to show an accused person did not commit a crime unless and until the true criminal were identified.

And the paper of Kirkby et al. provides a complete rebuttal of that logical fallacy, too: now it can be rejected by saying, “There is an alternative theory and it has withstood all tests: changes to cloud cover induced by GCRs could have caused the warming, so there is no need to invoke the AGW-hypothesis which is refuted by much evidence (e.g. missing ‘hot spot’, ‘missing heat’, missing ‘committed warming’, etc. )”.

So, the findings of Kirkby et al. are a devastating blow to the tactics used by promoters of the AGW-hypothesis. Hence, it should surprise nobody that the main ‘attack dogs’ of the ‘warmists’ are swarming over this thread and other climate-realist blogs in attempts to discredit those findings.

“Leif Svalgaard says:
August 24, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Jim says:
August 24, 2011 at 6:15 pm
“And the CERN result is no more than a repeat of that.”
That’s bunk.
And it way way is it more? Wilson showed that ionizing radiation could work as nucleation centers for ‘clouds’. What Kirby showed was even less than that, namely that “the particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds”. So, where is the bunk?”

You are ignoring the fact that details of the mechanism are being elucidated by this experiment. It matters.

Well said Richard. at 5 am. The cosmic rays theory is not new it has been conveniently ignored as well as the report by IPCC that they ignore the fact that 95% of GHG’s is water vapor. But when CERN announced this and not to be drawn into the climate debate is really an opening for others to ignore the effect cloud cover has on climate. C02 is indeed a greenhouse gas only 4%
and a fraction of this is enhanced by human activities, but not the sole source of CO2.
So if you want to reduce greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, you have to dry it out first and the sun does that. More rain, more nitrogen gets absorbed by the plants. Too much rain and we get floods and hurricanes. But I forget that now its little green men who are bombarding us with cosmic rays from outer space. Give me patience. Good imaginations these warming scientists.
But it now shows what value to climate science these AGW promoters have been, useless. They can’t do their science objectively or honestly.

“The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true.”

“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,”

A very accurate statement it seems to me. The CLOUD experiment wasn’t intended to be a verification of cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate. I fail to see why people are waving that around like it’s some kind of backhanded refutation of Svensmark. I also fail to see why people are waving the results around like they ARE a confirmation of Svensmark’s cosmic ray effect on climate theory. It isn’t. CLOUD’s intent was to verify a small part of Svensmark’s idea, that high energy cosmic rays can affect cloud nucleation and it appears to have verified that small part, as Dr Kirby states, it is an important first step.

I also found the New Scientist article enlightening, “If it is significant on a global scale, it might mean that the natural emissions of organics is also important in cloud formation,” says Bart Verheggen of the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands in Petten.

What exactly does Mr (Dr?) Verheggen think provides the Dimethyl Sulphide (the most abundant biologically produced sulphur) around the oceans if not emissions from algae? Dimethyl Sulphide emitted by various algae in the ocean is broken down in the atmosphere into sulfur dioxide, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dimethyl sulfone, methanesulfonic acid and sulfuric acid. A couple of these provide the basis for cloud seeds. So we’ve known for a long time that natural emission of organics is important in cloud formation.

Well, I propose that we drink a toast to Dr, Svensmark, his theory now thrice tried and not found wanting. He can now reasonably invoke Lewis Carroll’s Bellman, who claimed that “what I tell you three times is true”, and cloud researchers can get on with trying to quantify the influence on the process of sulphates or ammonia, how the “too small” nuclei grow and so on.

So, how are things at AGW HQ these days? Trenberth found his missing heat yet? Is the tropical hotspot attracting any tourists? Just asking.

“Similarly the journals Nature and Science, which in my youth prided themselves on reports that challenged prevailing paradigms, gladly provided cement for higher masonry, to hold the wicked hypothesis in check at the scientific level.”

I reluctantly concluded that liberals (er, now “progressives”) are happy to tear down if it empowers their replacement agenda, even when they cannot articulate their goals. Now we can see that agenda clearly and thus liberals must deny it in public. To assuage their self-loathing over our prosperity, the agenda demands that liberty and prosperity must be suppressed. A major avenue of attack is energy production and use. If liberals and liberal causes can financially benefit from such suppression efforts, all the better, and especially when their precious Gaia can be returned to her pristine purity in the process.

I’m no expert on this subject, so I have to ask; do clouds produce a net cooling or net warming effect? Certainly clouds in the daytime reflect sunlight, which produces a cooling effect. But clouds also block infra-red heat from radiating back out into space. That creates a warming effect. And at night there is no sunlight to block so there can only be a warming effect. Which effect dominates, warming or cooling?

‘Secondly, ‘warmists’ say, “You need to provide an alternative theory if you don’t want to accept the AGW-hypothesis.”

But this, too, is a logical fallacy. Proving one thing is wrong does not require an ability to show something else is right: otherwise it would be impossible to show an accused person did not commit a crime unless and until the true criminal were identified.’

Warmista seem to be hard-wired on this point. Yet the fallacies in their argument are as obvious as the nose on one’s face. In addition to the fallacy that you point out, there is a Classic Case of Argument from Authority; that is, their “theory” is true or must be treated as true until a better one is presented. Sorry, but no cigar. It could be that our assembled ideas about a topic do not amount to a theory or even a reasonable hypothesis about the topic. They use Argument from Authority in the most harmful way, namely, to shut down criticism of their scientific theory. Science is the critical discipline par excellence and proponents of a theory are duty bound to be its most severe critics.

Pardon me if I am late with this news. The Guardian has an article out today by Ian Sample that leaves open the possibility that Svensmark and Kirby might be onto something. Of course, that fact is hidden within the Politically Correct filler.

Many commentators here have lost sight of the fact that this new paper describes just the first phase of the long running experiment.
Yes, thet have not demonstrated that they can produce rain or even clouds.
The intention is for the experiment to go on until all the details are nailed down.

This is just the start.
When it’s over we will all know what causes the climate to change.

When the microchemical mechanism was revealed prematurely by the SKY experiment in Copenhagen and published in 2006, the warmists said, “No particle accelerator? That won’t do! Wait for CLOUD.” When the experiment in Aarhus confirmed the mechanism using a particle accelerator they said, “Oh that’s just the Danes again! Wait for CLOUD.”—————
So who kept saying “wait”. If there is no evidence of this I am calling this story telling by Nigel Calder. It smells like “I made this up to keep the narrative going”.

I have not seen much interest in these experiments apart from here. I consider them nearly irrelevant because the results are not novel. We already know that ions produced by whatever process, including cosmic rays, produce ionic clusters and these can act as nucleation centers.

The involvement of CERN in this looks like a publicity stunt since it’s not needed to do the experiment.

Useful information would be numbers such as formation rates in the real atmosphere. Then the importance of the process can be calculated and compared to other processes in the atmosphere. This includes other processs that affect cloud formation such as biological dimethyl sulphide production.

Anyone getting all excited before this happens just does not understand and is engaging in wishful thinking.

“Working on a sustainable future
Energy is very important to the World. Energy use increases due to economic growth. As a result CO2 emissions increase and the climate changes. Clearly, the energy system needs to become more sustainable, which can also offer opportunities for businesses. The Energy research Centre of the Netherlands, the leading Dutch institute for energy innovation, is dedicated to realising this.”

@ Ric Werme August 24, 2011 at 11:11 am: “I had no idea Calder was so bitter over all this”.
No surprise to me. He has fought against climate junk science for longer than most of us and encountered more than his share of stonewalling from all quarters, so he has every reason to be bitter. That does not invalidate his analysis of the situation, nor his untiring support for Svensmark’s work.

After Climategate (never to be underestimated nor forgotten) and now this, politicised science is at last on the way out and unbiased real science might have some chance of clawing its way back into the mainstream.

pochas says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:55 pm
“Lets not get too elated here….a reasonable skeptic must allow that CO2 may be a part of it.”

_____
Three cheers for all reasonable skeptics!

Wow, you cheer easily! I think we all agree that C02 has some warming effect. Is that what all the fuss was about then? C02 isn’t an evil monster, then, threatening humanity and the planet? We can continue using fossil fuels until something else comes along? Whew! Glad that’s settled!

@Greg Goodknight says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:22 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This could be an astute observation.

Presently, of course, this experiment/work merely supports the proposition that solar activity could have an effect on cloud formation; it does not establish that this has actually occured in real Earth conditions, still less that this explains the 20th century warming. That said, it has long been my view that the most probable explanation for the 20th century temperature record is changes in albedo and in particular cloudiness (the resons behind these changes not being understood, although, now in the light of this experiment and underlying work, there may be some explanation behind this variability) coupled with ocean phases.

It will be interesting to see how this resaerch develops and how the MSM reports on this

And CO2 is but a small fraction of the atmosphere, and to be blunt, what’s your point? The “consensus” is a small change in CO2 causes a significant change in temperature. Maybe this isn’t exactly and apples to apples comparison, but either way we’re talking a small change.

It’s very important that we, skeptics, launch Henrik Svensmark as a proponent for the next Nobel Prize of Physics. It would be important to know how the proposals for the Nobel prize are. Anyone got an idea?

Why would any scientists who grasps the AGW theory ‘run scared’ from an experiment that fails to show ANY cloud formation from cosmic ray effects.
That shows that cosmic rays are incapable of causing cloud formation at low altitudes and that natural and anthropogenic organic compounds are necessary and sufficient for cloud formation ?

Remember this gem of a story? BBC.
‘No Sun link’ to climate change ”
“The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate “sceptics”, that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.
The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the University of Lancaster team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.”
“The IPCC has got it right, so we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions
Terry Sloan”http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

Now, of course, the new meme will be that it does not matter and we never said it did. I am sure initially it will be reported that the effect is only laboratory induced and examples in nature are as yet non-existent. That will be so as to buy time for a more thorough and convoluted explanation as to how this is, in fact, very bad news for ‘deniers’.

…and those who continue their rant that CO2 is playing a part have yet to show me in any form of historical record other than cherry picking the last century, where CO2 warmed the planet. Any half-wit can go to the library and find a graph showing the cycle of global climate vs CO2 with no correlation evident. All we keep hearing is the same mantra of the recent century. It is very tiresome, indeed. Single-minded boring rant. Now with CO2 continuing to climb with declining temperatures the green house scare mongering mantra continues with total silence to the last decade. Talk about denial… ouch.

At what point in the life of AGW support did they jump on the CO2 ride. Did they not use the same skeptical approach that we see here with regard to CLOUD? Better to acknowledge early on that others may present new ideas that demonstrate some other forces are at play, thus leaving open doors to intellectual discussion.

Cheers to Svensmark. Cheers to those who supported his efforts. Cheers to this blog for scientific vigilance and integrity.

Why would any scientists who grasps the AGW theory ‘run scared’ from an experiment that fails to show ANY cloud formation from cosmic ray effects.
That shows that cosmic rays are incapable of causing cloud formation at low altitudes and that natural and anthropogenic organic compounds are necessary and sufficient for cloud formation ?

Because of that word… EXPERIMENT. The AGW believers have none, only model results.

August 25, 2011 at 9:08 am
“Assuming you have no objection that you wish to state, I intend to use your post as the clearest example of “denial” I have ever seen in the ‘climate debate’.”

No objection at all…
But I am curious what you think I am ‘denying’?

Do you dispute that as reported so far, the CLOUD experiments have shown that at low altitudes cosmic rays are NEITHER sufficient nor necessary for cloud formation, and that cloud formation in response to changes in pion/muon flux have NOT been demonstrated.
Only a minor modulation of condensation nuclei several orders of magnitude too small to trigger cloud formation.

“These new results from CLOUD are important because we’ve made a number of first observations of some very important atmospheric processes,” said the experiment’s spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby. “We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays.”

It seems to me that some of the commentators here did not read the material. If they had, they would know that Svensmark and Kirby dislike each other and Kirby would not give Svensmark any credit for the hypothesis nor cite early experiments in support (these were team efforts given strong Univ. and governmental support in Denmark). They would also realize that buried in the report is the fact that these are seed molecules, exactly as Svensmark predicted, that would quickly grow sufficiently for cloud formation. Kirby seems to have minimized this aspect as a bow to AGW, per the not so subtle instructions reported here at WUWT some while ago.
The fact that there 62 coauthors suggest that they know exactly how important this is and everyone wanted to be in the ground-breaking ceremony.

Meanwhile energy prices keep going up up and up and the poor get poorer and the poorest die of hunger just because a few arrogant scientists abetted by a cacophony of journalists and a large number of politicians want us to spend trillions of dollars in stupid and expensive ways of producing energy.

Is there a way of informing the politicians that they have no clothes on?
Maybe then, they would all get down to the real world, reduce the price of energy and spend all those trillions of dollars in saving the poor from certain death and saving the world’s economy from total collapse.

Why would any scientists who grasps the AGW theory ‘run scared’…
By “grasps” don’t you mean “clings to”?
The fear from the CAGW crowd began well before this, as their Warmist empire crumbles, collapsing like the Roman Empire did, containing the seeds of its own destruction. It was only a matter of time.

Roger Sowell says:
August 24, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Stephen Mosher, trace elements play a key role in chemistry. They serve as catalysts even in tiny quantities. This is well-known and happens in thousands of applications daily.

#####

Roger, I will have to search back through WUWT to see if you ever used this argument against those who argue that C02 is only a trace gas.

here is the point. many times you will see people make the spurious argument that C02 can have no effect because, merely because it is a trace gas. I do not see you or other rise to put this argument in the trash bin where it belongs. I am noting, with irony, that a strong skeptical argument ( CGR ) indicates that a trace amount of ammonia is all that is required.

To be clear. The argument ” X can’t have an effect because it’s only trace amounts” needs to be called out and corrected. If you like I’ll direct you to some threads and you can show me that you apply your reasoning fairly to all sides of the debate.

Henrik Svenmark’s work goes back to 1996 and earlier; the warmists have been very successful in suppressing it or even rubishing it because it certainly hasnt had much publicity in the last 14 years or so!

pochas says:
August 24, 2011 at 12:55 pm
“Lets not get too elated here….a reasonable skeptic must allow that CO2 may be a part of it.”

_____
Three cheers for all reasonable skeptics!

Wow, you cheer easily! I think we all agree that C02 has some warming effect.

_____
It is not just that CO2 has “some” warming effect, it is this…without CO2 and its related positive feedbacks during Milankovitch initiated warming of interglacials, there would be no interglacial.

It is not just that CO2 has “some” warming effect, it is this…without CO2 and its related positive feedbacks during Milankovitch initiated warming of interglacials, there would be no interglacial.

Here’s a counter question. If these “related positive feedbacks” are responsible for interglacial, what slows them down? What negative feedback stops the progression to ever-warmer temperatures? Why is the system stable after reaching interglacial temperatures? Also, since we are presumably in an interglacial, and all other interglacials have not gone into positive-feedback-runaway, why should we fear excess CO2 in the air now since history hasn’t shown that temperature ever runs away from us during the interglacials?

Your comment at 10:26am is preposterous. You are claiming CO2 has a massive impact on climate – 10 degrees or more. There is no evidence for this – everything points to a minimal effect.

That Vostok ice cores show strong correlations between CO2 and temperatures is just that – a correlation. It does NOT prove causation. In fact, it is far far more likely that temperatures influence atmospheric CO2 rather than your preposterous assertion that the tail wags the dog. One clue that global temperatures drive CO2 is the roughly 800 year time lag that CO2 rises or falls AFTER a rise or fall in temperature. It is impossible in natural systems that the cause occurs AFTER it’s effect (this is only possible in mathematics).

But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

All commenters should heed this caveat, instead of being victims of confirmation bias.

———————

Leif,

Did Kirkby undertake the CLOUD experiment without a very important basis for doing so being the previous work of Henrik Svensmark? Then how to explain Kirkby’s “ [ . . . ]but it’s a very important first step, [ . . . ]”? First step toward what? Leif, something looks less than forthright there.

What I see is a man on a long journey with a scientific hypothesis looking at some difficult scientific confirmation processes. (that man is not Kirkby) We see and try to understand there will be a process of several small steps testing the hypothesis of that man. Early in the journey we get results from a highly publicized small step that does not kill his hypothesis and indeed is encouraging. It allows the next small steps of verification of his hypothesis to continue. Excitation ensues, we celebrate the man’s vision . . . but then there ensues immediately a discussion of confirmation bias and caveats. OK. Kind of irrelevant to the celebration and excitement, but OK. (shrugging)

I think that this small step throws wide open the funding floodgates for the ensuing additional small steps. In my view it breaks the climate science funding lock that the aCO2 proponents had. That is something else to celebrate.

a) the cosmic rays which Svensmark hypothesises influence cloud formation are the GALACTIC cosmic rays (very high energy particles, travelling at relativistic speeds, and forming vast bursts of mesons and other collision products from high in the atmosphere). Solar cosmic rays (eg from coronae) interfere with telecommunications, are dangerous to astronauts, but do not form part of his hypothesis

b) The clouds which cool are low-level clouds. The high-level clouds seem to warm more than they cool.

c) changes in the sun’s magnetic field deflect more or less galactic cosmic rays; the flux of galactic cosmic rays is roughly constant as far as one can tell over years and centuries. But on geological timescales, as the solar system migrates between spiral arms of the galaxy, they same mechanism may be invoked to explain much larger temperature changes – perhaps snowball earth, or severe ice ages. These suggestions have already been made (see the videos above).

Finally, you can bet your boots that there are a good many more “unknown unknowns” in the pipeline.

I have read that the researchers suspect that there must be a volatile, probably organic, vapour that has a huge contribution to particle formation. This has already started speculation about another type of man made polution.

I would put my money on a different, more mundane material, dust. I guess that their chamber was kept completely dust-free, unlike the atmosphere. Probably the most common dust in the atmosphere is silica and various aluminosilicates. I understand that these are good at ice nucleation but less good at water condensation. However, being good size particles already and presenting a solid surface for the water vapour to liquid transition, they are quite good candidates.

Now consider the effect of ionizing (cosmic) radiation on the other atmospheric components. It produces lots of charged species and highly reactive radicals. Many of these will adsorb on the solid dust particles such as silica. In fact, silica is a standard substrate for conducting surface chemistry reactions that may not normally occur if the reactants were not absorbed on the surface. So then we have atmospheric silica particles with a very high reactivity potential.

Don’t forget that water can also be ionized to species such as hydroperoxy radicals HO2 which would just love to get together with alpha particles or protons. The silica (or other dust particles) becomes both a reactive substrate and the seed for cloud nucleation.

Along with extensive direct measurement of how thermal energy propagates through the atmosphere as a result of military research into missile detection systems and the direct measurement of changes in the magnitude and spectra of the outgoing radiation at TOA and the downwelling energy at the surface.

@- pat says:
August 25, 2011 at 9:45 am
“buried in the report is the fact that these are seed molecules, exactly as Svensmark predicted, that would quickly grow sufficiently for cloud formation. ”

Could you provide a link to experimental evidence that nanoparticles of this size are likely to grow to cloud nucleation size, rather than fall apart under molecular collisions?

@- Jeremy says:
August 25, 2011 at 10:45 am
“Here’s a counter question. If these “related positive feedbacks” are responsible for interglacial, what slows them down? What negative feedback stops the progression to ever-warmer temperatures?”

I don’t know what R Gates would reply, but mine is Quantum physics.
E=T^4

That Vostok ice cores show strong correlations between CO2 and temperatures is just that – a correlation. It does NOT prove causation. …

In fact the apparent causal chain visible in the Vostok and other ice cores indicates – reasonably and consistently with common physical principles – that warming (oceanic) actually effects atmospheric CO2 levels. That is, changes in temperature proxies (oxygen isotope ratios) change well before CO2 levels do (ca. 800 to 1,000 years before). Warmer ocean water releases gases in solution. AGW theorists argue that yes, temperature changed first, but then CO2 makes its contribution. However, since temperature proxies ALSO decline in the ice core before CO2 decreases, that horse won’t run.

There is sound laboratory evidence that indicates that CO2 really could have some sort of effect on the climate, but read critically, there is no real-world evidence of any sort that can stated to unequivocally show CO2’s influence. Models are not data and theyneed to evaluated in terms of real world data. If a model does not track reality, it is safe to conclude that the model as formulated is in adequate to the task, meaning either there are faulty assumptions or insufficient complexity in the model.

This nut will be a tough one for the warmists.
If they give a lot of reasons for why the radiative seeding have no effect on real cloudforming, then they may very soon get their words thrown back at them. On the other hand, it is interesting that the climate models can postdict climate so accurate, vithin hundreds of degrees C without incorporating fundamental cosmic ray data. Very tricky indeed.

“Along with extensive direct measurement of how thermal energy propagates through the atmosphere as a result of military research into missile detection systems and the direct measurement of changes in the magnitude and spectra of the outgoing radiation at TOA and the downwelling energy at the surface.”

As far back as Arrhenius, we knew that global warming or cooling was not to be found in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere but in the feedbacks caused by atmospheric CO2, feedbacks such as cloud formation. Questions about cloud formation have to be addressed with physical hypotheses that describe clouds, as Svensmark and Kirkby are doing, not with physical hypotheses that describe heat exchanges caused by radiation. In essence, if you have no physical hypotheses about feedbacks then you have no physical science of global warming.

Chris Colose says: August 24, 2011 at 12:11 pm
quote
The reason Svensmark probably didn´t receive much attention in the paper is because his results have long been refuted in the literature.
unquote

But refuted by what? Not models, I trust? Calder’s post on this is interesting and informative.

quote
The new Nature paper is interesting, but it is unable to put the causal link between cosmic rays and GW implied in this post. See some of the steps required (from Gavin´s post)
1. … that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
2. … and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
unquote

Or, put another way, the science of this is continuing and should be funded generously as a matter of priority. Yes.

quote
3. … and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
4. … and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
unquote

Re 3. I can help Dr Schmidt here. Google NASA shiptracks and observe with your own eyes the effects of an injection of extra particles into a boundary layer deficient in condensation particles. To further understand what is going on, and to extend it to 4., might I suggest you look at the paper by Latham and Salter on their cloud making machines and how few extra CCNs are required to alter the albedo of low level strato-cumulus clouds by enough to cool the entire planet.

Could I end by giving you some advice? It is not enough in science to have strong beliefs, a ready tongue and an attitude of hero-worship to some father figure scientist. Before it lost its way, the motto of the Royal Society was Nullius in Verba, On No Man’s Word. Abandon your heroes and try to stick to the science. If you must worship something, worship the truth. It will be good for you if not for your career.

Joe Crawford says: August 24, 2011 at 12:48 pm
quote
RealClimate already has a post on the paper here. where they state:
The other intriguing finding is that aerosol nucleation rates in the chamber don’t match (by a an order of magnitude or more) actual formation rates seen in real world near-surface atmospheric layers at realistic temperatures (only in unrealistically cold conditions do rates come close).
unquote

So perhaps there are other condensation processes. If you look at those ship tracks you’ll see how little extra is needed to tip an aerosol-starved area from an albedo of essentially zero to 70. Add ten percent extra to the boundary layer and watch it cool.

Stephen Wilde says: August 24, 2011 at 2:28 pm
quote
Didn’t we already know that such particles could provide condensation nuclei ?
The real issue is whether they do so in practice given that there is no shortage of nuclei already.
unquote

There _is_ a shortage in certain areas. I say again, shiptracks, Latham and Salter…

JF
(Sorry if the formatting doesn’t work too well, I’m off to the pub for the folkie night and in a hurry.)

@- Tony McGough says:
August 25, 2011 at 11:06 am
“But on geological timescales, as the solar system migrates between spiral arms of the galaxy, they same mechanism may be invoked to explain much larger temperature changes – perhaps snowball earth, or severe ice ages. ”

Recent research indicates that the solar system may be at or near the corotation diameter of the galaxy so that we do not pass through the spiral arms.
It also seems likely that our galaxy is a barred spiral so that the spacing between gaps is not even. This disrupts previous attempts to find a periodicy in the geoclimate and galactic rotation that match.

But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

All commenters should heed this caveat, instead of being victims of confirmation bias.

Taken alone, sure. The thing is we have to take into consideration the correlation between sunspot activity and climate change going back 400 years as well as Spencer’s findings in the CERES data from 2000 onwards and the fact that 1950-2000 is called “The Modern Maximum” in regard to sunspot counts – consistently higher during that time any time in the 400 year record of sunspot counting.

Each additional independent line of evidence that agrees with a hypothesis has a multiplicative effect on probability that the hypothesis is correct.

It’s how continental drift, for instance, became widely accepted. It has been noted by school children for hundreds of years that west coast of Africa fits very well with east coast of south America but it wasn’t until some more independent lines of evidence came along that the correlation was accepted as more than mere coincidence and the two continents were indeed once joined.

I might also remind you that CO2 warming is based upon no more than correlation. Famously its strongest support is that “the models” don’t agree well with observations without adding in a forcing from CO2 and then, putting it farther out in just-so land, inventing a water vapor amplification effect because the calculated effect of CO2 alone was only about a third of the forcing needed to make the energy books balance.

R Gates says: “The two (theories) are not mutually exclusive and both could be true to one degree or another.”
R. may I suggest you try and post this on skeptical science or RC or other CAGW site of your choice and check the results ? If you get an agreement somewhere that the science is not settled and both theories could be true please let me know.

Your comment at 10:26am is preposterous. You are claiming CO2 has a massive impact on climate – 10 degrees or more. There is no evidence for this – everything points to a minimal effect.
_________
Not preposterous at all. One of the most revealing thing about the ice cores was the CO2 levels and dust levels in relationship to temperatures. But for an overview of the critical role that CO2 plays, see:

“here is the point. many times you will see people make the spurious argument that C02 can have no effect because, merely because it is a trace gas.

Interesting, an inverse ad populum logical fallacy. Good one Mosher. I’d nominate it for its own unique entry in logical fallacies.

” I do not see you or other rise to put this argument in the trash bin where it belongs.”

I have, plenty of times. I think my favorite analogy for the physics-challenged I put forth is the weight of the black pigment in white versus black automobile paint which will turn the top of the auto from second-degree burning hot to uncomfortably warm in the same full sun. A few grams of pigment will change the temperature of tens of thousands of grams of metal by a great deal.

” I am noting, with irony, that a strong skeptical argument ( CGR ) indicates that a trace amount of ammonia is all that is required.”

Excuse me, sir, but I think you have me confused with someone who gives a dam about your emotional state.

Along with extensive direct measurement of how thermal energy propagates through the atmosphere as a result of military research into missile detection systems and the direct measurement of changes in the magnitude and spectra of the outgoing radiation at TOA and the downwelling energy at the surface.

Yeah, about those changes in the magnitude and spectra of outgoing radiation:

I don’t know what R Gates would reply, but mine is Quantum physics.
E=T^4

So your counter argument is a black-body relation of temperature to energy? That would seem to imply the earth is a perfect black body, or at least close to it. If so, why are we worried about excess CO2? Black bodies reach stable equilibrium with exterior energy inputs by natural law. CO2 concentration (and “related positive feedbacks”) in the atmosphere is an internal influence on the earth’s outgoing radiation, if you’re saying that CO2 (and “related positive feedbacks”) can change the total energy of the system and then saying that the reason interglacials do not experience run-away temperature with CO2 and their “related positive feedbacks” is because the earth is a black body you are making a very circular argument indeed.

Here’s your argument now summarized… “CO2 alters the radiative imbalance on earth, causing more energy to be retained by the earth, but the reason the earth doesn’t warm up forever and continue to accumulate energy is because it is a black body.”

Here’s a counter question. If these “related positive feedbacks” are responsible for interglacial, what slows them down? What negative feedback stops the progression to ever-warmer temperatures? Why is the system stable after reaching interglacial temperatures? Also, since we are presumably in an interglacial, and all other interglacials have not gone into positive-feedback-runaway, why should we fear excess CO2 in the air now since history hasn’t shown that temperature ever runs away from us during the interglacials?

Your answer will be amusing. Not might be, will be.
_____

This is an excellent question, and has been answered far more eloquently than I could here:

@- Dave Springer says:
August 25, 2011 at 12:23 pm
“I might also remind you that CO2 warming is based upon no more than correlation.”

If you do it is a false memory. The warming from CO2 is based on measurements of its physical properties since Tyndall and measurement of the changes in the magnitude and spectrum of the outgoing and back radiation.

-” Famously its strongest support is that “the models” don’t agree well with observations without adding in a forcing from CO2…”

Actually you have this backwards. The match between models and measured reality when the CO2 forcing is included is the strongest support that MODELS are accurate. It is already known from direct measurement that CO2 is a forcing.

The results of CLOUD so far show a much greater effect at (simulated) high altitude and low temperature. 3km and -25degC are mentioned I think.
If this is the case then any effect by cosmic rays on clouds will be dominant in the mid to high troposphere.
Not on the low thick clouds credited with the most cooling effect. In this case cosmic ray flux could modulate high thin clouds which may have a net warming effect.

Perhaps the last ten decades of increasing average decadel temperatures could then be attributed to 100 years of cosmic ray flux !!
-grin-

R.Gates – #1 – Where else to get information than the cathedral of the religion – Skeptical Science.
#2 – While they attempt to answer the question, they beg more questions, and soon an intelligent readers realizes they are clueless. So positive feedback diminishes. At what rate and when? No answer. Could it be immediately? no answer. Could it be that the positive feedback does not get started due to dampening in the first place? no answer.

This is an excellent question, and has been answered far more eloquently than I could here:

FTL:

In both of these cases, the “effect” reinforces the “cause”, which will increase the “effect”, which will reinforce the “cause”… So won’t this spin out of control? The answer is, No, it will not, because each subsequent stage of reinforcement & increase will be weaker and weaker. The feedback cycles will go on and on, but there will be a diminishing of returns, so that after just a few cycles, it won’t matter anymore.

1) This concedes CAGW cannot happen.
2) This means I should not worry about temperature increase or positive feedbacks (presuming they even dominate negative feedbacks) as a result of human-released CO2. If it is conceded that successive feedbacks have diminishing returns (as anyone familiar with thermodynamics knows), then CO2 or its “related positive feedbacks” cannot be a boogeyman to the earths climate.
3) This ignores negative feedbacks entirely, even though many papers have been written on them.

Your link makes me wonder why you’re even here defending AGW as a worthy line of investigation. It seems like you’re conceding it is on par with trying to discover if eggs are good for the average human. That is to say possibly useful in an academic sense, but clearly impractical to everyone and not worth the money spent. Since the concession here is that positive feedbacks can’t lead to a loss of stability in earths climate system and extra warmth (should it even occur) would just mean Canada and Siberia have an easier time feeding themselves, why are you even wasting your good years of typing on this message board defending its importance?

Well I can’t talk in science speak but one thing has occurred to me for some time and the linked New Scientist article brought it back to me, The article talks of the fact that although the sun has become increasingly inactive that cloud cover obviously hasn’t increased as we’ve seen no real cooling yet. However surely clouds are a double edged sword in that they also trap heat, so if there was an increase in cloud cover surely initially heat would be trapped as the vast heat/energy content in the oceans is less able to radiate out into space, and this process could go on for some time until the heat/energy budget starts to run into deficit. Naybe that would explain the levelling off of temperature rise over the last 11 odd years.
Hey what do I know.

@- Jeremy says:
August 25, 2011 at 12:55 pm
“Here’s your argument now summarized… “CO2 alters the radiative imbalance on earth, causing more energy to be retained by the earth, but the reason the earth doesn’t warm up forever and continue to accumulate energy is because it is a black body.”
It’s abject nonsense.”

Your right,its nonsense… but then that is not quite my argument. CO2 alters the gradient of energy distribution within the atmosphere.
Because a temperature rise requires a much larger increase in energy for each subsequent increment, a ‘runaway’ temperature rise would require a fourth exponential growth in available energy. That is a massive negative feedback on all the possible positive feedbacks.

But the REAL reason a runaway greenhouse is not possible is there is not enough Carbon available to turn into CO2. Most of it is sequestered in rocks by geological and biological processes.
Unlike Venus where most of it is in the atmosphere.

Perhaps you could get a runaway greenhouse if the levels of very powerful GHGs were increased, some of the CFCs have a ‘greenhouse’ effect thousands of times greater than CO2 so increasing the levels of such gases might have the effect thousands of time that of CO2…!

Nearly 500 readers of this thread have looked athttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NorthAtlanticOutlook.htm
some may wandered about the backdating of the all important red line graph.
It does surprisingly well for 350 years, both with the actual temperature and the sunspot records:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm
Looking for the climate change cause :
CO2 – definitely NOT !
Cosmic Rays – questionable ( ? )
North Atlantic Precursor (NAP) – a good candidate with both the necessary power and high correlation, which neither CO2 or CRs possesses to the degree required.
Science is far from settled !

CERN final conclusion: “However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/downloads/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf
——————————————————————————————————-
And Gavin over at Realclimate has said there hasn’t been any trend in cosmic rays for the last 50 years. So the warmists can write this off and still say `it`s the co2, stupid.` Good to see Svensmark’s work about cosmic rays proven correct, though.

“here is the point. many times you will see people make the spurious argument that C02 can have no effect because, merely because it is a trace gas.

Interesting, an inverse ad populum logical fallacy. Good one Mosher. I’d nominate it for its own unique entry in logical fallacies.

#####
Actually it’s not a logical fallacy since I’m not making an argument. What I am doing is rather simple. You know that on occasion the argument is made “C02 can have no effect because it is trace gas”. I am pointing out that if people buy that argument ( which is wrong) then they have a little problem of consistency when it comes to the point being made here about ammonia.

“You know that on occasion the argument is made “C02 can have no effect because it is trace gas”. I am pointing out that if people buy that argument ( which is wrong” in my opinion) “then they have a little problem of consistency when it comes to the point being made here about ammonia.”

At comment number 414+ I doubt this will read. But the internet is eternal.

First, is this the most commented article ever on WUWT.

Second, clouds have always been the weakest link in climatological knowledge … Even the IPCC acknowledges this. A small variation in albedo obviously produces a large change in the Incoming short wavelength radiation.

This experiment shows how cosmic rays can create seeding sites for clouds. Regard Leif’s caution seriously; there are still further causal steps to demonstrate, although I think Pilke has addressed some of these. But, see the frothing of the Warmistas!

IIRC, there have been articles with over 1,400 comments [or maybe it was 1,600+, can’t remember for sure]. There was lots of discussion following the Climategate email and Harry_read_me dump. Willis E’s articles sometimes draw over 500.

[The reason some articles get under a hundred comments is because Anthony posts 4 – 10 new articles a day. Readers gravitate to the ones they find most interesting.]

This is an excellent question, and has been answered far more eloquently than I could here:

FTL:

In both of these cases, the “effect” reinforces the “cause”, which will increase the “effect”, which will reinforce the “cause”… So won’t this spin out of control? The answer is, No, it will not, because each subsequent stage of reinforcement & increase will be weaker and weaker. The feedback cycles will go on and on, but there will be a diminishing of returns, so that after just a few cycles, it won’t matter anymore.

1) This concedes CAGW cannot happen.
_____
As I am not a C-AGW ist, in the extreme sense, just think AGW is occurring, but I suppose it depends on what you define to be “catastrophic”. There is a big range of temperature increases on the way to some equilibrium point as CO2 continues to increase. These temperature increases could prove most troublesome for the 7 billion humans now on earth who have come to appreciate the rather stable temperatures of the Holocene, and in fact, thanks to those rather mild Holocene temperatures, food grains like wheat and corn could be cultivated. I think the most likely first stopping off point for temperatures will take us to a climate similar to the mid-Pliocene, possibly making it difficult for 7 billion humans. Will it be “catastrophic”? That probably depends more on how humans react. If water, land, and food scarcity lead to more conflict, then that could be catastrophic in and of itself. But somewhere, eventually, the global temperatures will reach a equilibrium point, once CO2 and all associated other feedbacks, such as methane release, melting permafrost etc. have run their due course.

PhilJourdan says:
August 25, 2011 at 1:29 pm
R.Gates – #1 – Where else to get information than the cathedral of the religion – Skeptical Science.
#2 – While they attempt to answer the question, they beg more questions, and soon an intelligent readers realizes they are clueless. So positive feedback diminishes. At what rate and when? No answer. Could it be immediately? no answer. Could it be that the positive feedback does not get started due to dampening in the first place? no answer.

I am sure your faith is strong. But your faith is not my science.
______
Well then Phil, you’ll need to explain the science behind how a little forcing (i.e. Milankovitch cycles) lead to a disproportionate amount of warming in interglacials. While explaining this, explain the increase in CO2 that follows the glacial-interglacial cycle. CO2 did not cause the interglacial, but it made it possible. Just like the switch on your thermostat, is the “first cause”, or initiator, it is the thermostat that controls the warming. Milankovtich is the switch, CO2 is the thermostat. But again, find another explanation that follows all the data so nicely in the ice cores, and I love to hear it.

“Since there is no trend in cosmic radiation over the last 50 years, it is simply not possible for changes in cosmic radiation to have caused the trend in global temperatures. ”

Expanding on your excellent point about this interesting science, given that the variability of cosmic ray related forcing is an independent variable from atmospheric GHG forcing, perhaps a better way to phrase your assertion is…
“it is simply not possible for changes in cosmic radiation to have caused *a* trend in global temperatures.”

You seem to be implicitly acknowledging that the feedback coefficient is not constant, or even linear. Oh well, at least we all get to keep on arguing about what we think we “know” if we ignore this reality.

By the way, I agree, I think there are positive feedbacks at work when exiting an ice age……and likely entering them also.

From Professor Carter’s Climate: The Counter Consensus, p50. “Neff et al (2001) have provided incontrovertible evidence from palaeoclimate records for a link between varying cosmic radiation and climate. Using samples from a speleothem from a cave in Oman , Middle East, these authors showed that a close correlation exists between radiocarbon production rates (driven by incoming cosmic radiation, which is solar modulated) and rainfall (as reflected in the geochemical signature of oxygen isotopes).” See figure 1 in the link below.

Dave Springer says:
August 25, 2011 at 12:23 pm“All commenters should heed this caveat, instead of being victims of confirmation bias.”
Taken alone, sure. The thing is we have to take into consideration the correlation between sunspot activity and climate change going back 400 years as well as Spencer’s findings in the CERES data from 2000 onwards and the fact that 1950-2000 is called “The Modern Maximum” in regard to sunspot counts – consistently higher during that time any time in the 400 year record of sunspot counting.

Richard Spacek says:
August 25, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Richard Black of the BBC backed the wrong horse (Terry Sloan) against Svensmark back in 2008; I wonder if he feels chagrined?
=======================================
I don’t think these fake-socialists care which horse they’re on except that they get good mileage out of it before it can’t be flogged any more. They’re our saviors remember, pursuing that noble cause of wealth redistribution.

…… and it’s OK when they find that the net result was a redistribution of poverty, because they’re the BBC and they can tell everyone, with the usual aggrieved looks and mannerisms, that it’s someone else’s fault.

In fact, I can tell you whose fault it is right now – it’s Rick Perry’s fault.

“CERN’s statement continues: The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth’s surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required. Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays – are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.”

This quotation from CERN shows the most important criticism of “mainstream climate science” that can be inferred from Kirkby’s work. Warmista models do not contain usable information about cloud formation or aerosol formation. (Is that not a grand enough scandal to throw the whole bunch in jail now?)

And why do Warmista models not contain a credible account of cloud formation or aerosol formation? Because the Warmista have not done the empirical research necessary to produce such an account. The Warmista had to wait for Kirkby to discover that such an account is needed. Once again, the Warmista have no interest in empirical research at all. Their lack of interest undermines their own models.

So, we can conclude that the forecasts based on Warmista models have no credible account of aerosol formation. That alone shows that the models are baloney. It also shows that the Warmista who preach their superiority as “thinkers of the higher science” whose work cannot be understood by ordinary mortals are themselves full of baloney and deserving of the same respect as baloney.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 25, 2011 at 6:07 pmAnd why do Warmista models not contain a credible account of cloud formation or aerosol formation?
But they do. “[1] The NASA Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO) has developed a global non‐hydrostatic cloud‐system resolving capability within the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System global atmospheric model version 5 (GEOS‐5). Using a non‐hydrostatic finite‐volume dynamical core coupled with advances in the moist physics and convective parameterization the model has been used to perform cloud‐system resolving experiments at resolutions as fine as 3.5‐ to 14‐km globally. An overview of preliminary results highlights the development of mid‐latitude cyclones, the overall representation of global tropical convection, intense convective activity within the eye wall and outer rain bands of the 2009 Atlantic hurricane Bill validated by satellite observations, and the seasonal predictability of global tropical cyclone activity with realistic intensities. These preliminary results provide motivation for the use of GEOS‐5 to simulate multi‐scale convective systems within a global model at cloud resolving resolutions. Citation: Putman, W. M., and M. Suarez (2011), Cloud‐system resolving simulations with the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System global atmospheric model (GEOS‐5)”, Geophys. Res. Lett. , 38, L16809, doi:10.1029/2011GL048438. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048438.pdf

It would seem that Kirby/CERN experiments validate the calculations by Pierce and Adams http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL037946.pdf
“r. In this paper, we present the first calculations of the magnitude of the ionaerosol clear-air mechanism using a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics. In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”

Kudos to the CERN-team for providing a much needed [from a brilliantly performed experiment] confirmation of this important theoretical result. Science progresses when theory and experiment work together hand-in-hand.

Friends,
There are many natural against unnatural forces that influence our climate and weather. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. And weather kills us. CERN have done what most scientists should do, they haven’t concluded clouds alone control the climate. But it is obvious to any layman or woman with just a little knowledge of physics that cloud cover does two things.
It produces meteors either rain, mist, fogs, snow. It keeps us warmer in some seasons and colder in others. Deserts are hot during the day and temps dramatically drop at night sometimes in their winter to minus C. When there is cloud cover frost does not form. If cosmic rays (subatomic) meld with water vapour or molecules then they can form clouds, not the sole source though. And with solar activity these cosmic rays are deflected from the planet. Carbon is visible in many
forms from diamonds to soot. And us of course. CO2 is 4% of GHG with water vapor 95% and 1 % trace gases.

What the warmists have done is remove water vapor from their equations. We can’t stop volcanoes either that have been known to plunge parts of the world into a nuclear winter, ie.
Toba in the Indonesian archipelago 70,000 is supposed to have killed off humans because plant life was effected. Cause and effect.

Simple – no clouds no rain, and places suffer drought. It doesn’t rain all over the planet at one time either, we have seasons. Anyway although simplistic my reasoning is, the fact is, we can’t influence climate or weather because we can’t control our orbit, solar activity or cosmic rays and ocean currents. Nor volcanoes or hurricanes and earthquakes. As some blame these on climate change and AGW. As CO2 is mainly produced naturally, then by humans cutting emissions will not have any effect on our weather. Isn’t that strange that some think we can? Hope H Irene misses you all too. CO2 is not a POLLUTANT.

Which just leaves my proposition that shifting air pressure distribution changes cloudiness and albedo and such shifting is a result of an interaction between top down solar and bottom up oceanic processes.

For the benefit of those posters who still cling to the Nature piece But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds.

This sentence does not accord with the paper itself which says: “…the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organic vapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questions experimentally”.

Uncertainty over the number that grow large enough is a very far cry from the position implied by “those particles are far too small”. Kirkby (not Kirby please) also says: (about 2mins 30secs into the video) “These (ionised particles) may be responsible for helping the formation of these seeds which then become the seeds for cloud droplets.”

How then do posters such as izen for example (August 25, 2011 at 8:54 am) interpret this asThat shows that cosmic rays are incapable of causing cloud formation at low altitudes

With regard the low altitudes by the way Kirkby also says in the video: “When they (Galactic Cosmic Rays) hit the earth’s atmosphere they collide very high up, at about ten kilometres, and produce a spray of particles which come down and penetrate all the way down to the bottom of the earth’s atmosphere.

(izen also says: “…anthropogenic organic compounds are necessary and sufficient for cloud formation” which makes me wonder how clouds formed before the advent of man – but that is OT)

Finally
“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

He also says (last sentence of the video) “If you ask me in two or three months I will be able to tell you about it”

I see I need to rephrase my question. The new question is this: why is it that the Warmista had not discovered what Kirkby discovered before Kirkby discovered it? In other words, why did the Warmista not tell us that the combination of water vapor, sulphuric acid, and ammonia is “not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation?”

Why did the Warmista not tell us that “additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for NASA?”

Also, I see that I need to explain the difference between a computer model and genuine physical hypotheses. Kirkby has genuine physical hypotheses which (1) explain behavior in his little cloud chamber, (2) which can be used to predict behavior in his little cloud chamber, and (3) which have become reasonably well confirmed. Whatever you want to say is “in” a computer model, it is not physical hypotheses. For God’s sake man, if you have the relevant physical hypotheses you have no need for a computer model. NASA has no physical hypotheses of the sort that Kirkby has produced and NASA is still stuck with computer models and no physical science. It is similar to the difference between having a promise from the girl of your dreams and being in the midst of an orgasm with the girl of your dreams.

In what I wrote above, I left out an important point, the big picture. If NASA had the professionalism, humility, and scientific integrity of Kirkby, NASA would have said exactly what Kirkby said, namely, that formation of aerosols is not understood at this time and, for that reason, whatever we have in our models is not up to the task of simulating cloud behavior.

What that means is that NASA would be admitting that they have no account of the forcings from cloud behavior. Everyone knows, and has known since the work of Arrhenius, that no claim about the global warming that atmospheric CO2 causes can be taken seriously until the forcing from cloud behavior is understood. Being honest professionals, NASA would announce that they are Standing Down on the question of manmade global warming. Yet Hansen recently claimed that the lack of global warming is explained by China’s increased production of aerosols. Hansen’s claim is unprofessional, unscientific, and shows hubris rather than humility.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 25, 2011 at 7:33 pmAlso, I see that I need to explain the difference between a computer model and genuine physical hypotheses.
Computer models are the embodiment of the physics. We put all the relevant physics we know into the model the best we can, and the calculations and predictions from the model show us if our genuine physical hypothesis are on the right track. So there is no difference at all, models and physics are two sides of the same coin.

Finally, the Sun is now and has been for the last decade down to the same level of activity as around 1900, but temperatures are not.

Are you honestly advocating that a system with massive heat sinks such as our oceans, that has been slowly accumulating heat over the 11 decades since your chosen start date of 1900, with a supposed peak a decade ago – should magically drop down to it’s starting point over a single decade?

And you expect us to not only buy that one, but do so with a straight face and accept it as somehow being a meaningful scientific sort of proclaimation?

@- Phil’s Dad says:
August 25, 2011 at 7:23 pm
“Uncertainty over the number that grow large enough is a very far cry from the position implied by “those particles are far too small”. Kirkby (not Kirby please) also says: (about 2mins 30secs into the video) “These (ionised particles) may be responsible for helping the formation of these seeds which then become the seeds for cloud droplets.”
How then do posters such as izen for example (August 25, 2011 at 8:54 am) interpret this as
That shows that cosmic rays are incapable of causing cloud formation at low altitudes”

Perhaps because of this line in the abstract –
-“We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.”-

Phil’s Dad says:
August 25, 2011 at 7:23 pm
(izen also says: “…anthropogenic organic compounds are necessary and sufficient for cloud formation” which makes me wonder how clouds formed before the advent of man – but that is OT)

I don’t think it is offtopic. Are there any study on the prehistoric clouds? Do they really exist and what evidence is used to confirm this? And more important, what are the differences between the clouds of the Holocene and the previous epochs?

Rational Debate says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:00 pmAre you honestly advocating that a system with massive heat sinks such as our oceans, that has been slowly accumulating heat over the 11 decades since your chosen start date of 1900, with a supposed peak a decade ago – should magically drop down to it’s starting point over a single decade?
Look at figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf showing the strength of the heliomagnetic field [originating in the solar magnetic field and an indicator of solar activity]. The evolution of the activity from the 1840s-1870s to the 1900s is very analogous to the evolution the past 50-60 years, so the same magic seems to be at work. This said with a straight face.

I have the utmost respect for you as a scientist and a writer, but you have no understanding of scientific method whatsoever.

What are the purposes of hypotheses? One of them is to specify the data – all the data, to infinity. Can computer models specify the data? How? They do not imply the data. All they do is spit out numbers that programmers or, worse, scientists then interpret as meaning something. Using computer simulations is far closer to art than to science.

Can individual elements of a computer program be falsified? Can a program generate a simulation which contains numbers that require you to say “Aha, our views on cloud formation are false.” Of course they do not. All the program generates is a series of numbers and it is up to you to determine that those numbers conflict with the facts and it is up to you to associate the numbers in question with a particular aspect of the program. Each and every number generated in a simulation is generated by the entire program. No number can be associated with a particular piece of the program. By contrast, in genuine physical theory, each theoretic statement has cognitive content, is about something in the world, and that individual statement will stand or fall depending on facts in the world – no programmer or scientist interpretation is required.

Computer models are the embodiment of the physics. We put all the relevant physics we know into the model the best we can, and the calculations and predictions from the model show us if our genuine physical hypothesis are on the right track. So there is no difference at all, models and physics are two sides of the same coin.

And thank gawd we managed to invent supercomputers, or we never would have had any physics at all!! Amazing the advancements made since the advent of the field of physics not too long after super powerful computers were developed and people learned how to program models. Laws of thermodynamics, E=mc2, none of these things would ever have been known if it hadn’t been for computer models.

I wonder where the plankton, who are also influenced by UV, will fit in the total picture.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2011 at 7:55 pmComputer models are the embodiment of the physics. We put all the relevant physics we know into the model the best we can, and the calculations and predictions from the model show us if our genuine physical hypothesis are on the right track. So there is no difference at all, models and physics are two sides of the same coin.

And we live in the best of all possible worlds.

Hi Leif, I beg to disagree. The generation that is working on the models is the generation that has been playing video games from day one. Most of them believe that imagination creates reality rather than that reality should mold imagination.

A computer model is as good as the physics the modeller understands, in the best of cases, but has an almost infinite capacity to fool him/her and an audience, speaking of confirmation bias.

In the best of all possible worlds, and with the best and most honest scientists, your statement might hold.

Is it true that the ‘snow’ on a tv screen is the reception of cosmic microwave background generated by the big bang? Man we are being irradiated by CMBs GCRs, UV, XRAYs, IR, neutrinos, magnetc field forces, radioactivity,alpha particles, radio waves,…what a buzz! Have I left any out?

Theo Goodwin says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:18 pmyou have no understanding of scientific method whatsoever.
Strong words. And incorrect.

No number can be associated with a particular piece of the program.
The program is not constructed nilly-willy. Each piece of the program represents a physical reality or hypothesis. The output is the result of all the pieces working together.

Rational Debate says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:28 pmAnd thank gawd we managed to invent supercomputers, or we never would have had any physics at all!!
The things you mention were discovered 100 years ago. Modern physics is not possible without super computers.

anna v says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:37 pmA computer model is as good as the physics the modeller understands, in the best of cases, but has an almost infinite capacity to fool him/her and an audience, speaking of confirmation bias.
There are many modellers of several generations and they are not ALL fools or starry-eyed teenagers that never grew up.

In the best of all possible worlds, and with the best and most honest scientists, your statement might hold.
How many dishonest scientists do you personal know? care to mention their names?

Smokey says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:44 pmDidn’t you know that this is the best of all possible worlds
An optimist thinks that this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is afraid that that is actually the case.

Gary Pearse says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:45 pmIs it true that the ‘snow’ on a tv screen is the reception of cosmic microwave background generated by the big bang?
Some [not all] is.

How can anyone take the New Scientist seriously at this point? If you read their article and their corroborating evidence (which is also an article of theirs) you quickly realize that they are conflating solar radiation and cosmic rays.

Look at figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf showing the strength of the heliomagnetic field [originating in the solar magnetic field and an indicator of solar activity]. The evolution of the activity from the 1840s-1870s to the 1900s is very analogous to the evolution the past 50-60 years, so the same magic seems to be at work. This said with a straight face.

Leif, I would concur that well designed and controlled (including inputs) computer models and simulations can be incredibly useful and powerful tools. They are, however, just tools and are only useful to the extent that those designing and using them recognize that fact, and are able to do a really good job of accounting for and controlling all base assumptions, confounding factors, confirmation bias, data input flaws, and so on – AND calibrating against good empirical observations and data. They also must account for all credible competing hypotheses – and if used over longer time periods or model results used as a basis for other research, these things must all be thoroughly re-evaluated and adjusted accordingly on a regular basis. Otherwise it is very much ‘garbage in, garbage out.’ There is just no way that computer models and simulations of highly complex systems with massive unknowns and can even begin to be considred to be the flip side of the real world.

Also, am I alone in thinking that while 5nm nuclei are insufficient to create water drops on their own that having 10 times the number of these 5nm water drops during solar weak cycles would greatly increase the rate at which 5nm water particles will come in contact with one another and become bigger water particles?

It seems that Kirby is downplaying this because he wants to still get dinner invitations from his peers.

You seem to be implicitly acknowledging that the feedback coefficient is not constant, or even linear. Oh well, at least we all get to keep on arguing about what we think we “know” if we ignore this reality.
———–
I will explicitly acknowledge it. Feedbacks, both negative and positive must be chaotic in the sense that when certain thresholds are crossed, the feedbacks jump to a different regime or level, and in complex systems like the climate that level may not be entirely predictable based on the previous trend. The best example of this may be the Younger Dryas period when the Milankovotch cycle was tending toward greater insulation, CO2 was rising, and the earth was coming rapidly out of the last glacial, then suddenly, within a decade or less, the trend radically reverses, and 1300 more years of glaciation sets in, before an equally radical shift back toward the Holocene optimum.

I do not know how to respond to someone who ignores the entire objective of the experiment because he is of the opinion nano particles have not been proven to nucleate such as to encourage water coalescence, when the point of the experiment was to prove that the formation of such would likely result in cloud formation. We already know such particles grow and nucleate. It is true we do not know the exact chemistry. Hence a bit of discussion on ammonia, etc. Eh?

Rational Debate says:
August 25, 2011 at 9:29 pmuseful to the extent that those designing and using them recognize that fact, and are able to do a really good job of accounting for and controlling all base assumptions, confounding factors, confirmation bias, data input flaws, and so on – AND calibrating against good empirical observations and data. They also must account for all credible competing hypotheses – and if used over longer time periods or model results used as a basis for other research, these things must all be thoroughly re-evaluated and adjusted accordingly on a regular basis.
And what makes you believe that all that is not done as carefully as humanly possible? Here is an example: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048438.pdf

Then surely you must concur that the science of AGW (“c” or no “c”) is far from settled………for our lifetime it probably never will be. Even this simple reality assumes that there is nothing, or very little, that we don’t know we don’t know. And finally, that both weather AND climate are chaotic.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2011 at 5:09 pm
M.A.Vukcevic says:
August 25, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Nearly 500 readers of this thread have looked athttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NorthAtlanticOutlook.htm
And how many of those have come forward in praise?
————————————
I can do without the praise you are getting, but I still have to read today’s bunch .
CR’s are flavour of the day, some time ago was Scafetta and 60year cycles, then Archibald and short cycles, your good friend Livingstone, and not to mention perennial barycentrists.
Not that we agree on many things, but at least you stick to your FLAT SUN, and I will delve into the gmf hinterland.
On serious note I think that the post about the Denmark strait current was most relevant recent finding, except I do not think it is a new long term existing current, just a re-configuration of the flows (another case for correlation flip, don’ you think so?).

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck

On the one side have been the warmists, who believe the climate is just the sum of the obvious parameters — with a tiny bit of irrelevant noise that averages out in the end, and if they can only combine them into a suitable equation, then they can predict the climate, so their whole philosophy takes them down the road which ends up as WARMING = 3x (WARMING THAN CAN BE EXPLAINED BY REAL SCIENCE) – obviously I’m spelling it out to show how ridiculous it is, but they really do believe that an equation is possible.

On the other side, who I suspect is filled with engineers and others who have experience of applying science to real life situations, we have the assumption that the climate is largely chaotic and that any perturbation due to a change of a parameter will be set against a huge background of chaotic noise. We have tools and techniques from real life that avoid the need to characterise the whole system in complete detail .. we can work with chaotic systems by devising “rules of thumb” that characterise the response to perturbations and can accurately predict its response to future perturbations.

I would characterise the two approaches as “deconstructionalist” and “holistic”. In one they believe they can deconstruct the system into its component parts (the effects of CO2, H20, albedo etc) and once they have an equation to predict the behaviour of each component part they think they can simply add them all together (put in a convenient multiplication of 3 to make theory match reality) and hey presto, because it is the “best” model of the climate it must be the “best” way to predict the impact of e.g. CO2.

In constrast the sceptic approach see the system as a whole, it looks for known responses that can be shown to be a result of CO2 (like e.g. looking at the iceages) it uses a bit of “nouse” (common sense) to work out that CO2 can’t be that important, and we hold our hands up and say: “with a system this complex it’s impossible to say what caused the heating problem love” (Joke … typical words of plumbers).

The irony of this new sunspot-climate link is that (once the nutters running science admit it) that the system moves a lot further from the “mostly unknown” toward the “can be modelled” and it is even possible that it will take it to the “tipping point” where the majority of the climate can be modelled using known parameters. In other words, once they accept they have been wrong … that sunspots are linked to climate, then they will be right to predict the climate using their techniques … although whether people with such a poor grasp of noise (1/f) will ever understand the noise in such a system is doubtful particularly given their atrocious record.

Oops, I should have explained the joke “averages out in the end” … the point with systems with 1/f noise is that they don’t “average out in the end”. The annoying thing with such a system is that however many samples you take, there is always a noise component which is greater if you just took more samples. It is literally impossible in a system with 1/f noise (like the climate) to average out the noise … indeed, the paradox, is that because it is 1/f noise and the noise level decreases, the shorter the period you look out, the best way to get rid of the noise is to REDUCE the period. Obviously, too short a period and you run into Gaussian type noise which increases noise/signal the smaller the period … so there is an optimum compromise not too short and not too long.

And in my next post I shall attempt something easier … like explaining the rules of Cricket or how to create a multi-parameter model that predicts the behaviour of women.

Rational Debate says: August 25, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Are you honestly advocating that a system with massive heat sinks such as our oceans, that has been slowly accumulating heat over the 11 decades since your chosen start date of 1900, with a supposed peak a decade ago – should magically drop down to it’s starting point over a single decade?

Look at figure 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf showing the strength of the heliomagnetic field [originating in the solar magnetic field and an indicator of solar activity]. The evolution of the activity from the 1840s-1870s to the 1900s is very analogous to the evolution the past 50-60 years, so the same magic seems to be at work. This said with a straight face.

First, I must confess that on reading your last sentence, my face is no longer quite so straight, it’s a little curved. :0)

Leif, you’ll have to help me out a bit with your graph 10, because I don’t see a similar genesis from ~1850-1900 compared to ~1950-2000 (& I’m not sure what to do with your starting ranges, since they yield a possible difference of as much as 30 years. Or if you are using a current end date of 2000 or 2010?). Anyhow, it seems to me that from 1850-1900 from your own curve fit B(IDV) is decreasing pretty much along the entire length, where from 1950-1980 it was increasing, and had the curve fit ended in 2000, it would likely have been plateaued – but as shown, it looks to be decreasing from about 1980 on. Either way, how is that a similar evolution over the two time periods?

There is absolutely no doubt that this whole CLOUD episode has been full of the most blatant politically inspired delays … for obvious reasons.

What this clearly shows is that THEY KNEW THE RESULTS WOULD GO AGAINST THEM in other words, they knew that this was a valuable contribution to science and they intentionally repressed the development of good science because it wasn’t in their personal interests to see science develop this way. In other words, they blocked the development of science to line their own pockets and boost their own positions … at least I can’t see any other reasonable interpretation.

The public really deserve a few answers. And I don’t mean another “buddy review inquiry”

My suggestion is to ignore anything with ppm (parts per million – CO2) or did I see ppb ( parts per billion , ammonia or whatever trace gas), with no power and no correlation !
Reality is much simpler, down to earth, literally, no fancy chemistry of questionable re-radiation, nucleiation, puny trace gasses.
Reality is mighty Earth and Ocean, with the power, mechanism and correlation using the real ocean currents, real temperatures and real atmospheric pressures:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Atlantic-Essential.htm
see all three unique graphs and then ask the CO2 or the Cosmic Rays devotees to facilitate equally good numerical demonstration of the past years, decades and centuries.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2011 at 10:26 pmHere is an example:
Leif,

The fact that some models work fairly well for some interval of future projections and some parameters does not exonerate all models and modellers. Sure, weather prediction since I started following it on army maps back in the 1960’s is getting better and better, and can be quite accurate for a few days, so yes, some models for some time intervals work.

The specific models we are trashing in this discussion though, have fitted innumerable parameters to back data and presume to be telling us what is happening in 100 years when they can not even fit the absolute temperatures and play around with anomaliesLinkText Here . ( one of seven bad fits that I have accumulated) .

And on these shaky presumptions they ask the world to commit economic hara kiri because the sky is falling. It is no surprise that people grasp any solid scientific evidence that points towards other inputs to the temperature state of the planet, with enthusiasm. For too long mediocre prophets have been using model outputs to push their political agendas.

Warmists are depending on the majority of people not understanding graphs or scientific formulae. And it took several good honest scientists to take them on. If you didn’t have the qualifications like Lord Christopher Monckton you were expected not to produce evidence that could disprove them.(How wrong they were!). But if I have known (I do have a BA in archaeology and palaeoanthropology, Diploma of organic Agricultural production plus a few soil science and sustainability certs). Then where have we all been – it’s not new! CERN is an international body so all of a sudden they are producing scientific information already known to many. And down grading the influence of clouds on the climate. It was included in the DVD ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ as a special feature and discovered and described in 2003. If you look at the IPCC and BOM (Australia) you will see the small print. This is the amount of GHG present on a clear day (no clouds) C02 is the largest GHG in this hypothesis.
Cloud cover does trap smoke from fires. You can see in our valley the mist and underneath it a fire line of brown from wood smoke. You have smogs dangerous ones that combine sulfur dioxide with water vapour .

Why pray tell me why in ‘The Critical Decade’ a report given to the Australian government has a disclaimer on it. Page 2.
IMPORTANT NOTICE – PLEASE READ
This document is produced for general information only and does not represent a statement of policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the material contained in this document the Commonwealth of Australia and all persons acting for the Commonwealth preparing this report accept no liability for the accuracy of the inferences from the material contained in this publication or for any action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this material.

It was printed on a black background and the words/letters are white. It is on internet by the way if you want to peruse the ‘information’. Drawn from the CSIRO, BOM, Mann and the IPCC et al

How weak? And they expect intelligent people let alone scientists will take this ridiculous bit of manufactured data as gospel when they are not prepared to accept responsibility for its accuracy! Only the Greens and the government lackeys, Tim Flannery & Co who want some reason to introduce carbon trading and a mining tax, and were paid big dollars to produce this rubbish. Shame – Shame – Shame! The CERN experiment is the start but whether it carries another weight to change the mind of governments I am not sure.

I was just reading up on cosmic rays and read: “Cosmic rays kept the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere roughly constant (70 tons) for at least the past 100,000 years, until the beginning of above-ground nuclear weapons testing in the early 1950s.”

(ignore the obvious insertion by the warmists: any archaeologist knows you have to have a C14 calibration curve because it isn’t constant.)

My initial reaction was: “it’s a pity during the important period … we can’t know for sure what the actual level of cosmic rays were … because they increased …”

Then the penny dropped!

Now we know Cosmic rays are linked to climate (and I don’t just mean Svensmark & CERN but other research showing correlation means the balance of evidence points this way), of course a lot of those energetic particles are now manmade!!!! So, how does the apparent warming from 1970 to 2000 compare to manmade cosmic rays:

The first nuclear weapon was detonated as a test by the United States at the Trinity site on July 16, 1945 … The Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996, underground tests in the United States continued until 1992 (its last nuclear testing), the Soviet Union in 1990, the United Kingdom in 1991, and both China and France in 1996.

In short: the majority of manmade cosmic ray production was caused by testing from 1957 to 1990The majority of “mann-made” warming was seen between 1970 and 200

Now if someone were to tell me the half life of the nuclear products that lead to “manmade” cosmic rays was 10 years, I’d …

Doug Badgero says:
August 25, 2011 at 10:55 pm
“Even this simple reality assumes that there is nothing, or very little, that we don’t know we don’t know.”

That is a fallacy. About the unknown, or that what one don’t know one cannot say nothing. (Wittgenstein)

“And finally, that both weather AND climate are chaotic.”

That is a fallacy. Your statement suggests that there are physical processes possible without the laws of nature science. The universe is not dark because one has his eyes closed.

After the step to acknowledge ‘cosmic rays’ of high energy ions, it has to be explained the connection between the real global climate function and the real (source of) ‘cosmic ray’ function.

And yes, the measured cosmic ray intensity is mostly inversed to the sun spot periods, but this pattern is not visible in the global climate pattern. But the global temperature proxy pattern has a weak correlation with the time/frequency shift of the sunspot phase from the average sun spot frequency of 1/11.196 y^-1.

This means, that there is a connection between global climate and this shift mechanism. Today this shift is relaxing to the average frequency, and this suggests a phase of global cooling global cooling for the netxt years. Moreover, these pattern have also a weak correlation with simple geometries and motion in our solar system.

In other words, the global climate time function has a link to the ‘cosmic rays’ from the sun’s phase shift mechanism connected with the dancing planets around the sun, and not with the sun spot cycle.

Well I’m not a scientist [what ever that means nowadays ?? ] but I cannot agree with the heaters that the huge fiery ball in the sky that burns my skin,warms the seas makes the plants/animals thrive and grow , gives us thunder /rain and some of the best bits about our springs and summers! isn’t really a factor and we should forget about it ???
Hmm maybe it’s because if it’s a man made threat heaters can make us guilty and pay them to save us?

“Computer models are the embodiment of the physics. We put all the relevant physics we know into the model the best we can, and the calculations and predictions from the model show us if our genuine physical hypothesis are on the right track. So there is no difference at all, models and physics are two sides of the same coin.”

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

These computer models model nothing except the ignorance and prejudices of their programmers. The fact that they can tweak them to curve fit recent climate history tells us absolutely nothing. Remember,”With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”

That computer models are the only “evidence” that exists for the AGW theory tells us all we need to know.

Around half the heat of the sun transferred to the earth’s surface leaves as evaporation. That latent heat cannot be lost until that water is condensed in those fluffy things in the air – which is the primary transportation mechanism for around half the solar heat hitting the earth.

Now, as that heat needs to be dissipated, and the amount of dissipation is proportional to the amount of water dissipated, whether or not it is triggered by cosmic rays really shouldn’t effect whether or not the heat is dissipated in any one volume of air that rises by convection. So more/less of an agent to trigger cloud formation shouldn’t effect how much cloud is formed by any one volume of air, but add CO2 and that does increase the rate of cooling of that air, and cosmic rays may trigger the earlier formation of clouds, with the result that any volume of air forms clouds quicker and cools quicker, thereby considerably enhancing the rate of cooling of the atmosphere … but paradoxically speeding the rate at which clouds are cleared from the sky.

CO2 cooling … just as the physical properties of the CO2 molecule cause it to block IR, so those say properties cause it to emit IR … conveniently at wavelengths where other atmospheric molecules do not absorb. So, when CO2 is above the bulk of the atmosphere and particularly above the cloud layer, it is able to emit heat through the “window” where other molecules will not block it. In essence a “move heat direct to space” card.

So, cosmic rays would see clouds forming earlier and CO2 would see them clearing earlier, but the net amount of cloud would be largely determined by the IR emissive cross section of the clouds and the rate of energy being delivered by evaporative-convective transport. But, as CO2 improves the rate of emission of IR, the air cools quicker and I presume the amount of clouds would be smaller … hence more warming as more sunshine gets through (oops can’t say that!!).

However, what if the cosmic rays caused “premature condensation”. What if the rays triggered cloud formation at a lower level, a level where the pressure reduction was insufficient to trigger “complete” condensation? The result would be to slow the rate of upward movement of the air, perhaps causing air to condense over a longer period of time so that instead of a sudden burst of cloud, the result would be a longer more sustained cloud which tended to block less sunshine but for longer, perhaps with a net cooling.

What about larger weather patterns? The above really is based on those fluffy summer clouds that form in clear skies and lead to promising mornings turning into cloudy afternoons. We know large scale movements of air lead to weather fronts. In effect we have air that rises in low pressure areas, falls at high pressure areas and creates frontal systems where warm moist area meets colder air.

Obviously, this system is also driven by solar energy … warming moist air, looses heat when the air condenses and then falls as dry cold air. Obviously, the amount of cloud droplets is determined by the amount of evaporation at the surface. But those weather systems hang around for days. So, the cloud potentially also hangs around for days and whereas cloud during the day prevents sunshine, cooling the earth, so increased cloud at night prevents IR loss so keeping the earth warm. Now this is a very different system, whereas the fluffy clouds on a summer day directly affect the area from whence the solar heat is obtained to produce the evaporation, the dense areas of cloud at a weather front obtain the energy from areas far away. But again some of the same effects will occur.

Cosmic rays, will tend to trigger clouds earlier, again CO2 could cause clouds to loose heat quicker — so the air which was warmed by the condensation energy of the water (the opposite of evaporative cooling).

In fact, I see a battle here: cosmic rays as triggering this condensing warming, and CO2 as acting to cool. The two mechanisms are essential in opposition in the droplet formation zone (aka clouds). Indeed, cosmic rays allow clouds to form earlier, CO2 (and other IR heat loss mechanisms) allows them to dispel earlier. (although I’m less certain as I reread it)

Now clouds that tend to form during the day and reach saturation and then disperse at night … here CO2 may be actively causing the clouds to dispel quicker. So, where you have dense cloud, which cannot be “punched through” by an increased rate of cooling by CO2 during the day, during the night when the solar energy driving the system drops, and the cloud begins to dispel, the CO2 can cause more rapid dispersal of the clouds – leading to those “cold starry nights” and hence lead to cooling.

But, argh it gets even worse … when we have multi-layer clouds. Stratospheric and tropospheric, whilst obviously CO2 cooling works to an open sky, it doesn’t work if you have stratospheric clouds (but where do they come from? Cosmic rays?).

But what happens when the moist air has to move considerable distances before it condenses. A typical cyclone is 600 miles across, the inner zone is cloudy, whilst the outer zone is the “heating zone”, so the distance between the two is around 150miles. I’m going to guess (as I can’t find a figure), that the average wind speed is 10-20mph. This means that the time for air to go from heating zone to cooling zone is around 7-15hours.

This effectively means that the cooling/heating effects of CO2 and cosmic rays would be reversed compared to the “summer days” clouds, because the heat is lost when the sun is in the opposite condition. So rather than more cloud cooling, more cloud would actually form a cloud blanket reducing heat loss. So, more cosmic rays would lead to warming and more CO2 (cloud dispersant) would lead to cooling.

Yet, not one seems to have commented on CERN’s having a “strong electric field” making the experiment tainted, as long as the electric field was turned on.

In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still.

When I commented earlier, I confess I had not read all the way to the end. (I wonder if I am the only person who often just HAS to spit out his comment(s) before he reads any further….) So, I read this just now, and in the middle of it, I thought, “WHAAAA??? If there is a strong electric field, doesn’t that bogus up the results?” Then I read about them turning the field off, and WHAM! the un-tainted experiment then had a chance to begin. The field could not have been to set a datum baseline, not that I can see. Datums are supposed to be completely without factors that can affect results. A strong electrical field – can it ever be present and NOT affect results?

These results are remarkable.

But WHY did they stop at 2.5 nm’s? (Tin foil hat time: Or did they?) With the effect being every bit as strong on producing 2.5 nm clusters as any of the smaller clusters, though they were slower to form. But nature doesn’t give damn if it is a little bit slower.

The real question is this:

What is the largest clusters that would form?

They should have kept going until no larger clusters would form. It is obvious from the data points shown that clusters larger than 2.5nm would also form – since the slope of the 2.5nm clusters is as steep – weaning readily and profusely produced. That the curve was – to all intents and purposes – parallel to all the others means that they had in no way exhausted the cosmic rays’ capacity to form clusters.

And the verticaltity f those curves after the boost was turned on means that they had 100% found a correlation. I mean, it was almost like a nuclear pile with the graphite rods taken out.

But what is the upper range of cluster sizes? It looks like they either hid other results or they had no intention of finding this out – yet one of the warmists’ arguments is specifically that only small clusters were produced. In making such arguments, the warmists are ridiculing the results – in spite of the obvious lack of ANY data on larger cluster formations. If the large ones were in there, there should be some additional data curves that showed the increasing flattening of their curves. But there aren’t ANY larger clusters shown.

I don’t believe that they didn’t see some larger clusters. But where is the evidence of them?

In the New Scientist article, Kirby is quoted, “…an increase in 1 nanometre particles does not necessarily translate into the 50 nanometre CCNs needed for cloud formation.” Since they apparently didn’t even graph the data on larger-than-2.5nm plusters, who the heck would know if 50nm clusters formed?

Am I missing something? Where is the rest of the data?

Wht kind of scientists would not have gone farther to find out about larger clusters?

Kirkby et al. have done a good job. This paper confirms what several people have claimed during the last decade that the current climate models are missing an important ingredient which would have the effect to greatly amplify the solar effect on climate by means of a direct solar/cloud coupling that would modulate the Earth’s albedo. I believe that this study is a strong validation of the work of those scientists, including me, that have claimed that climate system must be studied starting from the data that show strong correlation with solar patterns which implies a very strong climate sensitivity to solar (TSI+cosmic ray modulation) changes. Even if not all issues are fully solved by this paper, I believe that the AGW advocates are ethically contraddicted because they have often claimed their case by stating that the “science is settled”, which was evidently false, and they have falsely accused people that questioned such assumption to be “deniers” or worst.

Right now I am in Beijin in China at a workshop on climate change organized by the Accademy of Science of China. I need to say that here the people were quite open to the possibility that the current IPCC AGW theory could be wrong because the climate models are too questionable yet, and people were quite interested in empirical-model studies of climate change that were showing that a strong solar/natural effect on climate.

“Well then Phil, you’ll need to explain the science behind how a little forcing (i.e. Milankovitch cycles) lead to a disproportionate amount of warming in interglacials.”

No! Absolutely not! Are you competing with Izen in attempt to present the most illogical post in this thread?

You are asserting that “radiative forcing” directly affects “warming”.
Phil Jourdan points out that it does not.
And your response is to claim he needs to show how a lilttle forcing induces large warming.

No! You need to prove that radiative forcing causes ANY direct warming.
You made the assertion so you need to prove it.

All Phil – and anybody else – has to do is to point out that observed reality disproves your assertion.
He HAS pointed that out, and your answer admits he is right.

anna v says:
August 26, 2011 at 12:55 am
For too long mediocre prophets have been using model outputs to push their political agendas.

Here we are in 2011 and people are still saying “Look, the computer said it, it must be right.”
One thing is for sure Anna, they’re not prophets, mayby, propheteers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propheteer

Scottish Skeptic clouds keep the surface temperature trapped in Winter. Humidity levels increase and that will encourage rain. You know when you are near the sea and there is rain about to happen then it feels muggy and hotter. The higher the humidity or atmospheric water vapor increase the more likely hood of rain. Clouds do contain some carbon dioxide so it can be said CO2 can increase warming, but they forget to say when no clouds are present particularly in winter the frost can form. It’s like a blanket or shade cloth.

It looks like the alarmists have finally gotten it right, after all.
Since man has only an inkling of how the real climate movers and shakers influence the grand system, then the term Climate Disruption can fit any result.
It’s still all your fault.
Pay up.

R. Gates says:
August 25, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Well then Phil, you’ll need to explain the science behind how a little forcing (i.e. Milankovitch cycles) lead to a disproportionate amount of warming in interglacials

Um, no, I do not have to do anything, as I have not putting the cart before the horse. I prefer the scientific method of discerning answers instead of creating them. Once the answer is known, I will be glad to explain it to you. However, until such time as we know it, why explain something that is yet to be explained? Again, I ask questions, and record observations. I do not jump to conclusions with insufficient information.

However, if you look carefully, you can see there is a difference between the warming NH and SH.
I have been to correlate this “extra” warming in the NH to increased vegetation
which in turn is partly caused by the greenies (wanting more trees and gardens) but could also partly be caused by the increase in CO2 which probably acts as fertilizer and accelerator for more growth.

All that I have not been able to figure out is the mechanism.
Is it that a more greener earth reflects less sunshine back to space?
Or is it the entrapment of moisture that prevents more heat from leaving earth? (GH effect)
Or is the chlorophyl capturing more energy (UV) during the day than it really needs, and gives it off during the night as IR?

“The fact that some models work fairly well for some interval of future projections and some parameters does not exonerate all models and modellers. … The specific models we are trashing in this discussion though, have fitted innumerable parameters to back data and presume to be telling us what is happening in 100 years when they can not even fit the absolute temperatures and play around with anomalies LinkText Here . ( one of seven bad fits that I have accumulated) .”

Hi Anna V,
Since terrestrial climate seems to be connected with the processes on the sun and the movements of the planets, there is an outlook, alike the prediction of the eclipses, simple calculate the global climate in 100 years or in 1000 years.
The terrestrial impedances have phase shift effects on the frequency oscillations of the earth. The QBO frequency is twice the frequency of ENSO frequency and the chandler wobble frequency is twice the frequency of the QBO. The chandler wobble frequency of the earth is ten times the frequency of Jupiter.
But the terrestrial impedances are also superimposed on solar system frequencies which are well known for – 5000 years and +1000 years. From these data and a few parameter for the strength, it is not out of the question simple to calculate the global climate in 100 years. A rough impression for as well high frequency temperatures and very low frequencies can give from some fits I have done.

“Well then Phil, you’ll need to explain the science behind how a little forcing (i.e. Milankovitch cycles) lead to a disproportionate amount of warming in interglacials.”

Your ignorance knows no bounds, Gates. Milankovitch cycle ADDS NO FORCING. It changes the seasonal temperature difference between winter and summer. Warmer winters and cooler summers give ice the advantage. This happens when orbital precession has perihelion in the middle of northern hemisphere winter and when axial precession has the inclination at a minimum. The calander date of perihelion traverses the calander once every 24,000 years and axial precession is a 42,000.year cycle. Currently perihelion is on Jan 4th and axial precession is halfway between extremes. Both are moving towards point where difference in insolation between NH summer and winter is minimal. Holocene interglacial is already 2,000 years older than 10,000 average length of interglacials. Conditions are ripe for ending it. One big earth cooling volcanic eruption will probably be the trigger that ends it. The unpredictable timing of large volcanoes is likely what causes the variability in interglacial length but conditions remain advantageous for ice for thousands of years as Milankovich cycle is near point of minimal seasonal difference between winter/summer temperatures. Over thousands of years you can pretty much guarantee a large enough eruption for the trigger.

You are asserting that “radiative forcing” directly affects “warming”.
Phil Jourdan points out that it does not.
_____
This is nonsense of the highest order. Of course radiative forcing directly affects warming, and we all should be glad it does to a point. No radiative forcing, no nice greenhouse effect…very cold planet.

However, until such time as we know it, why explain something that is yet to be explained?

____
Phil, honestly, can’t you see the absurdity of this statement? Thank God for the curiosity of the human mind in wanting to explain and understand things that are not yet understood…it’s the soul the scientific process.

Ice core samples and the patterns of gases, dust, isotopes in them are a mystery to be solved. Combined with Milankovitch astronomical forcing, they reveal the roadmap for the past 800,000 years of climate. CO2 positive-feedbacks provide a plausible explanation for at least part of that puzzle. Other explanations or alternative hypothesis welcome…

anna v says:
August 26, 2011 at 12:55 amFor too long mediocre prophets have been using model outputs to push their political agendas.
Where is the mediocrity and dishonesty you are postulating in this:http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048438.pdf
[2] The development of global non‐hydrostatic atmospheric general circulation models capable of cloud system resolving weather/climate prediction has progressed steadily with the accessibility of large supercomputing resources and the improved scalability of models. This has permitted experimentation at resolutions as fine as 3.5‐km globally capable of resolving cloud clusters of deep convection in the tropics [Satoh et al., 2008; Tomita et al., 2005]. Building on the conclusions from the World Modeling Summit for Climate Prediction [Shukla et al., 2009], experimentation with very high‐resolution global climate modeling has gained enhanced priority. The U.S. National Science Foundation has recently dedicated an entire 18,048‐core Cray XT‐4 supercomputer, Athena, for a series of global climate and weather simulations at resolutions ranging from 28‐ to 7‐km [Dirmeyer et al., 2011; J. L. Kinter et al., Revolutionizing climate modeling ‐ Project Athena: A multi‐institutional, international collaboration, submitted to Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2011].

Dave Springer says:
August 26, 2011 at 7:03 am“There is no such documented correlation. We have solar activity and climate proxies going back thousands of years and there is no correlation.”
Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum both line up perfectly with cooling and Modern Maximum with warming.
Perhaps you should look at the data instead: slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf

Leif
So there is no difference at all, models and physics are two sides of the same coin.

You need to complete the circle of this one. You see, in physics, we derive a theory usually through mathematics, or question an observation, we then use that mathematical model to run a computer ‘model’, we then test the results of that model against reality. Now that’s where climate models have feared to tread. If the model doesn’t reflect reality/observations precisely we search for the limits of that failure and then redefine the experiment and the computer model.

However, many physical theories, particular those postulated by Eistein, Bohr et al have yet to be confirmed and where they haven’t been confirmed by observational data we say so. It’s a question of honesty, you see.

“That is a fallacy. About the unknown, or that what one don’t know one cannot say nothing. (Wittgenstein)”

I have said no such thing. I have simply pointed out that it is possible that there are things we don’t yet understand about climate. Hardly much of a leap for the truly skeptical. For instance, for centuries we did not know that Newton’s laws of motion were incomplete.

“That is a fallacy. Your statement suggests that there are physical processes possible without the laws of nature science. The universe is not dark because one has his eyes closed.”

“Yet, not one seems to have commented on CERN’s having a “strong electric field” making the experiment tainted, as long as the electric field was turned on.

In an early-morning experimental run at CERN, starting at 03.45, ultraviolet light began making sulphuric acid molecules in the chamber, while a strong electric field cleansed the air of ions. It also tended to remove molecular clusters made in the neutral environment (n) but some of these accumulated at a low rate. As soon as the electric field was switched off at 04.33, natural cosmic rays (gcr) raining down through the roof of the experimental hall in Geneva helped to build clusters at a higher rate. How do we know they were contributing? Because when, at 04.58, CLOUD simulated stronger cosmic rays with a beam of charged pion particles (ch) from the accelerator, the rate of cluster production became faster still.

…If there is a strong electric field, doesn’t that bogus up the results?” Then I read about them turning the field off, and WHAM! the un-tainted experiment then had a chance to begin. The field could not have been to set a datum baseline, not that I can see. Datums are supposed to be completely without factors that can affect results. A strong electrical field – can it ever be present and NOT affect results?”

Kirkby and team are not trying to measure aerosol formation in nature. They are trying to measure the effects of a particular kind of cosmic ray beam on an artificial environment. Notice that they added water vapor, sulphuric acid, and ammonia in a controlled way. In this way, they learned something about the interactions among those four items. The electric field is an attempt to limit the experiment to those four items. What they are trying to do is test the most basic physical hypotheses about aerosol formation. They are not jumping ahead to the question(s) that gets debated here, namely, can increases in GCRs increase cloud cover. That questions remains far down the road after they have done many more tests in development of the basic physical hypotheses.

They stumbled upon what I consider to be a great discovery. They found that those four items do not create the aerosols in an environment similar to the environment of low flying clouds on Earth. Now they can search for an additional item or items that will produce such aerosols.

I hope you can see the scientific method at work. You start with your basic hypotheses, you perform experiments, and you build on those results. To me, the most important aspect of Kirkby’s work is that we will get to see his system of physical hypotheses grow. Along the way, some will be pruned and it will be sometime before there is enough growth to shed light on the question of cloud formation. However, the scientific method guarantees that the more complicated system of physical hypotheses will be as solid as its foundation. That is the great beauty of scientific method. Computer models do not work that way.

In a computer model, you model something. Would you agree? When you model something, you create a simulation of that thing. The simplest example is a linear programming model that simulates the shipping patterns of a large corporation such as the Defense Department. Each run of the model is a simulation and is a set of numbers that specifies what goods are in warehouses, what goods are at destination points, and what modes of transportation were used. Notice that the fact that I am using a model means (requires) that I build in a whole raft of assumptions that are necessary just to get the model to run (solve). The step-by-step procedure followed by Kirkby is not possible for anything on that raft of assumptions. Why? Because the assumptions have to be there for the model to run and generate one simulation of the shipping network. Is there any way to get at those basic assumptions? No. Modifying an existing assumption does not help because it means that I now have two distinct models whose assumptions cannot be investigated.

If Kirkby’s work is not stopped by the powers that be, the world will get to see scientific method in action as it is applied to this problem of low-flying cloud formation. The very fact of progress through an ever more impressive and better tested set of physical hypotheses will stand in stark contrast to the models used by “mainstream climate science.” However, as in all applications of scientific method, we must be patient. This work could take decades. The most important virtue of a scientist is humility. With Kirkby’s work, the public has the opportunity to share in that humility. Don’t laugh. Back in the Fifties, the educated public understood the necessity of humility for scientists.

“The program is not constructed nilly-willy. Each piece of the program represents a physical reality or hypothesis. The output is the result of all the pieces working together.”

However, not all scientific codes are constructed or documented very well – I offer you exhibit A.

Moreover, what Leif doesn’t mention is that most of the calculations we solve in science and engineering (particularly in thermo-fluids) are NON-LINEAR. You are never guaranteed a solution, nor are you guaranteed that a solution even exists. If you somehow can define all of your differential equations, boundary conditions, and auxiliary relations that you believe to be applicable to a physical process, it is very possible to solve them badly (regardless if the code is “nice” and all the pieces “work together”). I’ve been working in computational fluid dynamics for over 20 years, and it is amazing how even the simplest problems in fluids can be very difficult to solve numerically, and how “bugs” show up unexpectedly. Unfortunately, colorful animations and graphics often mask what are underneath poor numerical solutions…

Scottish Sceptic says: August 26, 2011 at 1:26 am
… so why are starry nights colder?
*************************
I am just a simple redneck (and proud of it) from Texas, so I hope that the other Gentle Readers here will correct me if I’m wrong. I believe the answer to your query is:

Because the most potent and most common greenhouse gas is…………water vapor! “A starry night” implies that there is very little water vapor in the air. So heat energy radiates into space unimpeded. (Yes, Virginia, there ARE greenhouse gasses and they do increase the temperature of the Earth.)

I used to live in the high deserts of Nevada and Idaho. It was not uncommon to see temperature swings on the order of 40 degrees F in the summer. The other GHGs, like CO2 are trivial.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
August 25, 2011 at 8:18 pm
you have no understanding of scientific method whatsoever.
“Strong words. And incorrect.”

You misunderstand me. I do not question your abilities as a scientist, writer, or blogger. If you enjoy playing with computer computer models while you are doing your science, I have no doubt that the investment in the supercomputer will pay off handsomely.

My one very simple complaint is that your posts here do not incorporate references to the working of scientific method in the work of the scientists. For example, you do not address my claims about scientific method. Of course, you have no obligation to address those claims.

No number can be associated with a particular piece of the program.
“The program is not constructed nilly-willy. Each piece of the program represents a physical reality or hypothesis. The output is the result of all the pieces working together.”

In talking about construction of the program, or component programs, you need to compare that construction to the process of creating physical hypotheses, deducing consequences from them, and checking those predictions for confirmation. As I explain in my post just above, scientific method is not available to the computer modeler for the simple and obvious reason that you have to build a whole raft of assumptions into a computer model to get it to run (solve). You cannot do the step-by-step introduction and testing of basic physical hypotheses that Kirkby is doing. Without that step-by-step work, you cannot claim that your more sophisticated sets of hypotheses rest on the firm empirical foundation of your earlier, basic physical hypotheses.

If you are using a supercomputer, as the “mainstream climate scientists” are, then you understand very little about the advanced heuristics that are needed to make your model solve. There is simply not enough time or energy in a human being to be a cutting edge scientist and a cutting edge programmer for a supercomputer. Yes, some scientists have become cutting edge programmers but they are no longer “doing” cutting edge science.

You might have broken your model into several component computer programs. You might believe that the components are neutral as regards the science. But you do not know that. The programmers will tell you how individual modules have to be adjusted and their decisions are based on advanced heuristics that have no scientific content whatsoever. That is the practical problem. Without going into the theoretical problem, I think it is safe to say that one can prove that the underlying programming is never neutral with regard to the science.

Has anyone else felt a surge of liberation today and the urge to fling back those repressed feelings, come out and openly express our “feelings”?

… no honestly! It’s great, and I think you can do it too!! Repeat after me ….

CO2 is a warming gas

YES YES !!! YOU CAN DO IT!

But seriously, isn’t it like a breath of fresh air, we can finally admit that CO2 is a warming gas without that stupid moron coming back and saying … “if you accept CO2 causes warming … what else explains global warming”.

I am still looking for an answer to this problem:
If I (we) can prove that the increased vegetation causes some extra warming
what would be the proposed mechanism?

Is it that a more greener earth reflects less sunshine back to space?
Or is it the entrapment of moisture that prevents more heat from leaving earth? (GH effect)
Or is the chlorophyl capturing more energy (UV) during the day than it really needs, and gives it off during the night as IR?
Anyone any ideas on this?

R. Gates says:
August 26, 2011 at 6:53 am
This is nonsense of the highest order. Of course radiative forcing directly affects warming, and we all should be glad it does to a point. No radiative forcing, no nice greenhouse effect…very cold planet.

Like to change horses in mid-stream? When replying to people, it is best manners to reply to what is said, not what you want them to say. Your attempts at strawmen are pathetically weak.

R. Gates says:
August 26, 2011 at 6:59 am
Phil, honestly, can’t you see the absurdity of this statement? Thank God for the curiosity of the human mind in wanting to explain and understand things that are not yet understood…it’s the soul the scientific process.

Um no, you are confusing religion with science. Religion explains everything, science asks “why” or “how” or “what” (when who where etc.). Science then builds an hypothesis and tests it to see if it can be sustained. If it can be, and after rigorous testing, science then says “I have a theory. This theory COULD explain what we observe.”.

Religion on the other hand says “I am the truth and the light and the way! I have all the answers!”

Frank K. says:
August 26, 2011 at 7:30 amHowever, not all scientific codes are constructed or documented very well
Of course not, but that does not mean that all codes are poor.

Moreover, what Leif doesn’t mention is that most of the calculations we solve in science and engineering (particularly in thermo-fluids) are NON-LINEAR.
That is why we need carefully controlled numerical models, and the modellers are keenly aware of that.

scientific method is not available to the computer modeler for the simple and obvious reason that you have to build a whole raft of assumptions into a computer model to get it to run
The assumptions are called physical laws. The model solves a set of coupled non-linear differential equations, with parameterization of stuff that are not well-known.

There is simply not enough time or energy in a human being to be a cutting edge scientist and a cutting edge programmer for a supercomputer.
Programming the models does not require a ‘cutting edge’ programmer, as the program is a straightforward implementation of the physics.

You might believe that the components are neutral as regards the science.
The components are constructed such as to reflect the science.

Henry@phil
If you define religion as: seeking God’s face and asking Him to show you which is the way (to do good) and you define science as doing tests and measurements and evaluations to find out what to do (to do good), then it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the truth.http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/open-letter-to-radio-702

“That is a fallacy. About the unknown, or that what one don’t know one cannot say nothing. (Wittgenstein)”

I have said no such thing. I have simply pointed out that it is possible that there are things we don’t yet understand about climate. Hardly much of a leap for the truly skeptical. For instance, for centuries we did not know that Newton’s laws of motion were incomplete.”

Sorry, it is of no worth to speak of that what NOT is.

“ “That is a fallacy. Your statement suggests that there are physical processes possible without the laws of nature science. The universe is not dark because one has his eyes closed.”
Are you denying the existence of deterministic chaos?”

The attribute ‘deterministic’ suggests causality in physical streaming processes using forces. Chaos is not an object of physics, because chaos is not an observable in physics.
The point, when using chaos, is to show it’s existence as a natural law.

You say: “And finally, that both weather AND climate are chaotic.”
I say weather has its basis in natural laws of physics and climate has its basis in natural laws of physics, which ARE. And that what ARE, do not need causality, it IS.

It is impossible to show with scientific methods chaos or chance. It’s a belief system.

[ . . . ]Even if not all issues are fully solved by this [Kirkby et al] paper, I believe that the AGW advocates are ethically contraddicted because they have often claimed their case by stating that the “science is settled”, which was evidently false, and they have falsely accused people that questioned such assumption to be “deniers” or worst.

Right now I am in Beijin in China at a workshop on climate change organized by the Accademy of Science of China. I need to say that here the people were quite open to the possibility that the current IPCC AGW theory could be wrong because the climate models are too questionable yet, and people were quite interested in empirical-model studies of climate change that were showing that a strong solar/natural effect on climate.

—————

nicola scafetta,

I can agree that the ‘science is settled’ claims of the AGW by aCO2 is ethically challenged, at the least.

I would very much appreciate more on your experience with critical climate scientists in China. Please post on it if you can.

My numerous experiences in China gave me the impression of general skepticism in the culture.

Yes, I know you are right,
Plants and trees both needs warmth and CO2 to grow
so this is casusing some cooling by the CO2
which, together with the radiative cooling caused by CO2,
probably neutralizes any warming effect of the CO2.

But that does not seem to take away the fact that more vegetation is trapping more heat.

“We put all the relevant physics we know into the model the best we can”

Therin lies your first mistake.

First off, we don’t know all the physics.
Secondly, the mathematics involved is very complex. Much too complex to ever calculate. As a result, many equations are parameterized. This introduces approximations into the equation. The more parameterization, the greater the approximation.
Thirdly, the world is too big to be modeled. So they divide the world up into boxes, and declare that everything inside each box is a constant. It has been shown that just changing the size of the boxes used in your model will affect the results of the model.
Fourthly, in order to initialize the models, they have to feed in real world data. This data is not known with any degree of accuracy, so it has to be guessed at.

John Whitman wrote:
Leif,
Do you think that the development of the CLOUD program was directly due to the work of Henrik Svensmark?
+++++
Not only was it directly due to it, it directly confirms the conclusions of Henrick Svensmark.

The reports are just waffling about it for obvious reasons. They have to re-tune their funding proposals to (slowly and patiently) investigate this remarkable, unexpected, unproven, controversial, time-absorbing, budget busting need to investigate obvious and well described business of shadow-casting rain cloud formation.

The repeated statements that the GCR-induced particles formed are ‘too small’ to form clouds is ridiculous. How do they think clouds form in the first place? It all starts with a molecule (!) of H2S.

You don’t understand what deterministic chaos is………..it is not “chance”. It is extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. It applies to many physical laws, e.g. Navier-Stokes equations, and the motion of the planets around the sun. It most certainly is is……..to use your somewhat curious phrasing. I suggest you Google the term.

“The assumptions are called physical laws. The model solves a set of coupled non-linear differential equations, with parameterization of stuff that are not well-known.”

Differential equations are mathematical formula used for calculation. They are not about the world or human experience and do not imply anything about the world or human experience. They are not physical laws. .

You say the assumptions are physical laws. Fine, if that is true then I challenge you to present the physical laws. If you had them, you would be trumpeting them from the highest tower. You would no longer need your computer except for calculation.

(This is what drives people crazy regarding Warmista claims. Warmista claim that they are doing good science, but they have no physical laws to present and will obfuscate any attempt to discuss physical law. If Warmista are such good physical scientists, where are the physical laws that explain formation of low flying clouds?)

Let me give you an example of what you should present when presenting your physical laws about the formation of low flying clouds.

Kepler created three physical hypotheses about our solar system that have become known as Kepler’s Laws. Newton created the calculus and gave Kepler’s Laws their first rigorous formulation. Kepler’s First Law is that planetary orbits are ellipses. From this universally quantified statement, it can be predicted that Mercury has an elliptical orbit, Venus has an elliptical orbit, and so on. The “initial conditions,” the facts used for prediction, are Mercury is a planet, Venus is a planet, and so on. The predictions can be checked through observation from Earth. However, the full context of all three laws must be stated before the observations can be described clearly.

If your model contains physical hypotheses which describe the formation of low flying clouds, then produce the universally quantified statements which express them. You do not have them. No “mainstream climate scientist” has them. Kirkby just proved that.

If your “mainstream climate science” supercomputer model of Earth’s atmosphere actually contains physical laws, then there are no professional programmers who would work for you. Formulating the model in that way would make the supercomputer so slow that it would be no better than a MacIntosh. What your supercomputer contains is code created by programmers and you cannot decipher that code, unless you have actually become a programmer and left science behind. But even if you could decipher it, there is no way to associate lines of code with a particular physical hypothesis except through the numbers that each generate.

When you run your computer model, you generate a simulation and in it you find a set of numbers corresponding to cloud formation at low levels. If you had physical hypotheses describing cloud formation at low levels, you could deduce a similar set of numbers from them. Then you could compare the output of your computer simulation with the output of deduction from the physical laws. If the two outputs are identical then you could say that your model conforms to physical laws (if you had them). But that is all that you can say. And please notice that you must have the physical laws independently of your model if you are going to use them to validate your model. But you have no physical laws governing the formation of low flying clouds in Earth’s atmosphere, as Kirkby has just proved. So, you have no scientific basis to validate your model.

Maybe the most important point is that the use of models for anything other than analytic purposes is Quixotic. Physical laws stated in natural language are much easier for humans to understand and to work with than are pages of differential equations which, after all is said and done, are only one man’s technical solution to a problem requiring calculation. The computer is great for calculation and is great for the analytic purpose of creating simulations to test the assumptions that the program is built upon; however, the computer contains nothing but the assumptions programmed into it.

John Whitman says:
August 26, 2011 at 9:29 amDo you think that the development of the CLOUD program was directly due to the work of Henrik Svensmark?
I don’t know about ‘directly’. I sense some rivalry between Svensmakrk and CLOUD.

Mark Wilson says:
August 26, 2011 at 9:40 am“We put all the relevant physics we know into the model the best we can”
Therin lies your first mistake.
First off, we don’t know all the physics.
We put in what we know. As we learn more, that is put in too. Perhaps one day the CERN finding will find its way into the models.

Secondly, the mathematics involved is very complex. Much too complex to ever calculate. As a result, many equations are parameterized. This introduces approximations into the equation. The more parameterization, the greater the approximation.
Everything are approximations, so we get approximate answers, but those are better than no answers.

Thirdly, the world is too big to be modeled. So they divide the world up into boxes
With ever increasing computer power, the boxes become smaller and smaller and the results better and better. Your and meany other’s mistake is to believe that models in principle are useless.

@- Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 7:25 am
“Kirkby and team are not trying to measure aerosol formation in nature. They are trying to measure the effects of a particular kind of cosmic ray beam on an artificial environment. Notice that they added water vapor, sulphuric acid, and ammonia in a controlled way. In this way, they learned something about the interactions among those four items. The electric field is an attempt to limit the experiment to those four items. What they are trying to do is test the most basic physical hypotheses about aerosol formation. They are not jumping ahead to the question(s) that gets debated here, namely, can increases in GCRs increase cloud cover. That questions remains far down the road after they have done many more tests in development of the basic physical hypotheses.”

This is possibly the most accurate and insightful post in this thread about the experimental results announced. This is the first, extremely preliminary, results from a large research project that may get to how, when and why cloud condensation nuclei form. But the effect of a pion beam on small molecular cluster aerosols is a LONG way away from that.

At best it nothing to say about Svenmarks’ hypothesis that GCR modulate cloud cover and by extension decadel climate trends.

At worst it indicates Svenmarks’ hypothesis that GCR increase low thick cloud that reflects solar irradiance and cools the climate (or warms when GCR flux falls) is false. The sentence in the abstract –
-”We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.”-
Would seem to indicate that the specific detail of the Svenmark hypothesis – the GCR effect on low altitude clouds – is likely to be of negligible influence.

Which makes the various posters calling for the physics Nobel for Svenmark look at minimum a little premature…

I expect that the exciting new results Kirkby will be announcing in another few months/year will be that DMS when added vastly increases and modulates aerosol nuclei formation with or without the pion beam.
-grin-

Do not ask me to assume that you understand scientific method because you are a scientist. If you want me to believe that you understand scientific then use the terms of scientific method when you respond to my claims about it.

Do not assign me homework. I made claims about scientific method that I addressed to you. Please respond to them in your own words here and now.

Let me clearer. I was trying to be polite. I will put politeness aside. The reason I doubt that you understand scientific method is that you never talk about scientific method when posting at WUWT even though scientific method is crucial to the topic under discussion.

Frank K. says:
August 26, 2011 at 7:30 am
Moreover, what Leif doesnt mention is that most of the calculations we solve in science and engineering (particularly in thermo-fluids) are NON-LINEAR.

That is why we need carefully controlled numerical models, and the modellers are keenly aware of that.

—

What do mean by “carefully controlled”? Does that mean, for example, adding a lot of artificial dissipation to a scheme so that it won’t blow up (numerically)? How about unphysical filtering and ad hoc limiters?

The big problem with code development, particularly for something as complex as a climate model, is that the modelers keep adding things to their modelers without fully understanding how their baseline models behave. That’s why I challenge the modelers to write down ALL of the relevant equations that their codes are using, including the numerical approximations (GISS still hasn’t done this for Model E). You quickly begin to see how things can go very wrong very quickly, and how much we really don’t know about even simplified systems of equations. I also keep asking the open question “How do we know that the system of equations and BCs being solved for climate modeling purposes is well-posed”? So far, no takers…

CERN’s chief investigator for CLOUD, Dr. Jasper Kirkby, says that emissions from trees will be the next candidate to be examined. Could trees possibly create some larger stuff that may seed clouds better when struck by cosmic rays, and thereby bring on future global cooling due to the plethora of contra-CO2 trees now being planted? I wonder — can CLOUD potentially implicate tree sap? Will IPCC’s true believers then go back to Yamal for some more selected tree cores to support some new sappy studies? (Sorry, I just couldn’t resist … )

“Your and meany other’s mistake is to believe that models in principle are useless.”

I’m sure people aren’t saying that about models in general. One example of a successful computer model outcome came from cosmology, and it was designed to test the conjecture that dark matter is necessary for galaxy formation. They first constructed a model to simulate a galactic formation that contained only ordinary matter. The result showed that instead of the myriad of long lived stars we observe, we end up with matter condensing into a relatively small number of giant stars that blow themselves up after a few million years. So the model falsified the null hypothesis that galaxies can be formed by ordinary matter alone. They then added a ‘skeleton’ of dark matter to see if this led to observed reality, and it did – the galaxy that resulted was much like our own.

I like this example very much, because it is based on known physics (gravitational attraction and laws of motion) and sets out to test a hypothesis.

However, all models are not built equal. Theo Godwin and others have pretty much summed up the problem. First, they don’t know the physical laws – Kirkby’s results have proved that. Second, the models aren’t testing any known conjecture or hypothesis – quite the opposite. They are generating predictions, but these predictions tell us nothing about the underlying science.

Climate has continually varied in the past, and the causes are not well understood – especially on the 100 year timescale relevant for today’s climate change

Strong evidence for solar-climate variability, but no established mechanism. A cosmic ray influence on clouds is a leading candidate.”

GCR is a label. What is solar variability? What are ‘cosmic rays’? I don’t know.
Seems that the object ‘cosmic rays’ have to expressed in common scientific units and to explained where the source of the particles is located.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 10:32 amthen use the terms of scientific method when you respond to my claims about it.
I don’t know what ‘the terms of scientific method’ are. Explain.
I gave you an example of the scientific method in action. You have no comments on that?

Frank K. says:
August 26, 2011 at 10:36 amThat’s why I challenge the modelers to write down ALL of the relevant equations that their codes are using, including the numerical approximations (GISS still hasn’t done this for Model E).
As far as I know, the code is published for all to see.

Forget it gates, Milancovic cycles are not a forcing. This is team talk to make it seem like everything forces the weather/climate. Force is a unit of work. MC does no[t] work.

_____
You don’t believe that Milankovitch cycles act as an external forcing on the climate?
How interesting.

Don’t know what “team talk” you’re referring to, nor who might suggest that “everything” forces the weather or climate, but clearly changes in the amount of NH insolation brought about by Milankovitch cycles do affect the climate, though, as the point of this really is about the fact that the net forcing is far in excess of that which should be brought about by the change in NH summer insolation alone…hence, the notion of positive feedback effects from the increases in CO2 which Milankovitch cycles initiate.

I write to thank you for the laugh you gave me at August 26, 2011 at 6:53 am .

Your post demonstrates that you know nothing – absolutely nothing – about radiative forcing but you have sufficient of both arrogance and stupidity to pontificate about that of which you are blissfully ignorant.

At August 26, 2011 at 3:22 am I wrote the completely accurate statements that said;

”R. Gates:
You are asserting that “radiative forcing” directly affects “warming”.
Phil Jourdan points out that it does not.”

Your post replies by saying:

“This is nonsense of the highest order. Of course radiative forcing directly affects warming, and we all should be glad it does to a point. No radiative forcing, no nice greenhouse effect…very cold planet.”

You write that rubbish and have the gall to call my accurate statement “nonsense”!
Laugh? I almost wet myself.

The Sun has increased its direct radiative forcing of the Earth by between 20% and 30% since the Earth has obtained an oxygen-rich atmosphere. And there has been liquid water on the surface of the Earth throughout that time.

If radiative forcing directly affects warming then the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.

The climate system is bi-stable. It has had similar temperatures in glacial and interglacial periods despite very different amounts of radiative forcing. And that is why the Earth has sustained life forms to the present day.

anna v says:
August 26, 2011 at 12:55 am
For too long mediocre prophets have been using model outputs to push their political agendas.
“Where is the mediocrity and dishonesty you are postulating in this:http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048438.pdf ”
The reference is a 20 day ( weather) program and 7 month exercise. Climate is over 30 years.

Since we are talking of clouds, here is a study By D.Koutsoyannis et al, of the predictions from current GCM for climate, on hydrological conditions of the planet.

From their conclusion:It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

The intellectual dishonesty in your link comes from using the model validated on 20 days for climate projections because “how could such expensive computer outputs be wrong?”

Please remember that the output of a computer model is evidence of what the modellers programmed. It is not evidence of anything else.

Each climate model is unique. They each use a different value of ‘climate sensitivity’ and each is tuned (sorry, “parametrised”) to match past increase to global temperature by a unique value of assumed ‘aerosol forcing’.

But there is only one climate system of the Earth. Therefore, at most only one of the models emulates the Earth’s climate system. If one of them is right then there is no way to discern which one that is. And taking an average of their indications compounds this problem because average wrong is wrong.

So, most – probably all – of the climate models are emulating something other than the Earth’s climate. Hence, the output of a climate model is an indication of what the Earth’s climate probably will NOT do.

And clouds are the biggest flaw in the models’ designs.

Ron Miller and Gavin Schmidt, both of NASA GISS, provide an evaluation of the leading US GCM. They are U.S. climate modelers who use the NASA GISS GCM and they strongly promote the AGW hypothesis. Their paper tiltled ‘Ocean & Climate Modeling: Evaluating the NASA GISS GCM’ was updated on 2005-01-10 and is available athttp://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/oceans/
Its abstract says this:

“This preliminary investigation evaluated the performance of three versions of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies’ recently updated General Circulation Model E (GCM).
[snip]
The model had problems representing variables in geographic areas of sea ice, thick vegetation, low clouds and high relief. It was hypothesized that these problems arose from the way the model calculates the effects of vegetation, sea ice and cloud cover.
[snip]”

This problem of erroneous representation of low level clouds could be expected to induce the model to provide incorrect indication of effects of changes to atmospheric GHGs because changes to clouds have much greater effect on climate than changes to GHGs.

Climate models? They are computer games for the amusement of those who lack sufficient skill to play on a PS2.

Scottish Sceptic says:
August 26, 2011 at 12:03 am
And in my next post I shall attempt something easier … like explaining the rules of Cricket……
—————————–
OK then Mr Sottsman. If you are that bright then explain how the English could have invented a game that can play for up to 5 days and still not have a winner?

Extremely well said. I really like your example from cosmology. It is a perfect example of highly successful use of a model to perform analysis within the context of physical law. Models are fabulous analytic tools. They have no synthetic capability whatsoever; that is, they are worthless for prediction.

Thanks for your reply. But muons / pions are just as neutral as neutrons. It seems clear that the component of GCR that will cause the interactions leading to cloud nucleation will be charged particles, such as fast protons.

Thus I continue to fail to see the significance of data on neutrons and pions / muons on the Svensmark type mechanism. Perhaps they are a convenient index of GCR because they are not charged and thus reach the earth surface without interacting. However only charged particles will have the stopping power and LET to cause interactions including ionisation leading to nucleation.

WHAT IF a significant – or predominant – part of the particles causing cloud nucleation were not primary but secondary particles? High atmosphere collisions and spallation between incoming GCR particles of any type, including neutrons, yields a rain of secondary charged particles (in medical physics these are called delta particles). These secondary charged particles are (a) sensitive to shielding of earth by charged particle solar wind and magnetic fields (unlike neutrons and other neutral particles) and (b) the most potent to cause interactions leading to nucleation, on account of their charge.

Thus surface measured fluxes of non-charged particles could be irrelevant to the Svensmark mechanism if it is charged particles, including secondary ones, that are “doing the business”.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 26, 2011 at 11:44 am
Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 10:32 am
then use the terms of scientific method when you respond to my claims about it.
“I don’t know what ‘the terms of scientific method’ are. Explain.
I gave you an example of the scientific method in action. You have no comments on that?”

The basic terminology of scientific method:

1. Physical hypothesis: a universally quantified general statement which is conditional in form, though it can contain many sub-clauses that are conditionals, and describes some regularity in nature. My favorite examples are Kepler’s Three Laws. Law one states that planetary orbits are ellipses with the sun at one foci. All physical hypotheses must be relatively well-confirmed. See Kuhn’s “Copernican Revolution” on the confirmation of Kepler’s hypotheses and Newton’s rigorous formulation of those hypotheses.
2. Initial conditions: these are statements of observable fact which can be combined with one or more reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses to form an argument that implies some statements of observable fact that describe events that will occur in the future (prediction) or the past (postdiction or retrodiction).
3. Predictions: statements of observable fact that have been deduced from at least one relatively well-confirmed physical hypothesis and some set of initial conditions.
4. Confirmation: the event of discovering that a prediction correctly describes observable fact and, for that reason, has been found to be true. The hypothesis or hypotheses used in the prediction are what is confirmed.
5. Scientific explanation: a set of relatively well-confirmed physical hypotheses and a set of initial conditions that are used to predict some event. The event predicted is the event explained. For example, from Kepler’s Three Laws one can explain that Venus will be in half-phase (like a half moon) at time t for observer o on the surface of Earth. The explanation is the set of hypotheses that specify all the facts our solar system as they are presented in the standard encyclopedia of science. The predicted event is said to be an “instance” of the natural regularities that make up the solar system. Notice that prediction and explanation are fully symmetric. What is predicted is explained by the physical hypotheses and initial conditions used for the prediction and what is explained is what is predicted.

For a more complete account, buy one of the two classics:

Carl Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation.

Israel Scheffler, The Anatomy of Inquiry

For more recent but more challenging accounts:

Isaac Levi, The Enterprise of Knowledge (and his later works).

Kirkby follows the scientific method religiously. He designed his experiment in a controlled environment so that he could investigate the interactions among water vapor, sulphuric acid, ammonia, cosmic rays, and nothing else. To his surprise, he learned that those four ingredients are not sufficient to create low flying clouds in Earth’s atmosphere. Now he is searching for another ingredient.

Kirkby’s work proves that climate models are incorrectly formulated because they assume that the four ingredients are sufficient for generating the low flying clouds in question. Climate modelers could not have discovered this information on their own. They could not have made the discovery because they assume that their models truly represent the natural environment so long as each simulation contains a set of numbers that is consistent with, but maybe divergent from, the usual set of numbers that are observed in Earth’s environment. There is no way that a modeler can evaluate that assumption. The only way to evaluate that assumption is to do what Kirkby did, namely, step outside the model and follow the scientific method by creating an environment that permits empirical testing of the basic assumptions about what is necessary for cloud formation.

Modelers are not empirical scientists and, for that reason, are also not physical scientists. They desperately need the Kirkby’s of the world to anchor them in empirical reality. Modelers are Begging the Question; that is, they Argue in a Circle. They assume that if the results of a model run are consistent with observed reality then “the model” or “that component of the model” has explained and predicted the observed numbers. False. False. False. You have to do what Kirkby did before you know whether your “model” or “component of a model” is actually useful for explanation and prediction of the behavior of low-flying clouds. Kirkby just proved that no existing model can explain or predict the behavior of low-flying clouds. That is a classic application of scientific method.

tallbloke says:
August 26, 2011 at 12:31 pm
“We need an independent assessment group crawling all over the Team’s climate model code and its parameterisations and ad hoc bolt-ons.”

Absolutely. You need high-end programmers who are well-versed in advanced heuristics. They must also have a keen understanding of science and scientific method. Their first assessment would show that computer models offer no reason to believe that AGW is taking place now or has taken place in the last 150 years.

anna v says:
August 26, 2011 at 12:51 pmThe intellectual dishonesty in your link comes from using the model validated on 20 days for climate projections because “how could such expensive computer outputs be wrong?”
I don’t know anybody who actually thinks so [with the exception of some commenters here]. That the models are no good is not because the modellers are morons or dishonest, but because the job is difficult. Steady progress might get us there. All the talk about ‘the models do what the programmers put in there without knowing what they are doing’ is just nonsense. That people make policy based on faith in the models is their fault, not the modelers. A people have the politicians they deserve.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 1:55 pmModels are fabulous analytic tools. They have no synthetic capability whatsoever; that is, they are worthless for prediction.
Yet, models are used everyday for just that.

“With ever increasing computer power, the boxes become smaller and smaller and the results better and better. Your and meany other’s mistake is to believe that models in principle are useless.”

As Reagan said, “There you go again”. I for one never said that models are useless. I have said that they are not sufficiently rigourous to base any policy decisions on.

I have stated that the hindcasts do not adequately correspond to historical data to call them validated.

I have repeatedly declared that the models cannot be used to show that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming seen over the last 100 years. I have also said that because of their lack of rigor, the claims made by modelers that doubling CO2 will result in a temperature increase of 5 to 10C is not credible.

As to your comments about reducing the size of the boxes. Every time you have the size of the boxes, the amount of computing power needed goes up by the cube. Make the boxes half the size, your computer needs to be 8 times more powerfull. Make the boxes 1/4th, computer power required goes up by 64 times.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 2:34 pmThe basic terminology of scientific method
You have demonstrated that you can cut and paste, but have not shown that you understand or have any experience with what you pasted. How often do you apply the ‘scientific method’?

Kirkby follows the scientific method religiously. He designed his experiment in a controlled environment so that he could investigate the interactions among water vapor, sulphuric acid, ammonia, cosmic rays, and nothing else. To his surprise, he learned that those four ingredients are not sufficient to create low flying clouds in Earth’s atmosphere.
So, following the scientific method, he has now disproved the hypothesis, as you admit: “4. Confirmation: the event of discovering that a prediction correctly describes observable fact and, for that reason, has been found to be true” which in his case he did not find, thus disproving the hypothesis.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 2:39 pmTheir first assessment would show that computer models offer no reason to believe that AGW is taking place now or has taken place in the last 150 years.
You prescribe what they are supposed to find [just like the IPCC] or describe what you wish them to find. You call that the ‘scientific method’?

Mark Wilson says:
August 26, 2011 at 3:14 pmAs to your comments about reducing the size of the boxes. Every time you have the size of the boxes, the amount of computing power needed goes up by the cube. Make the boxes half the size, your computer needs to be 8 times more powerfull. Make the boxes 1/4th, computer power required goes up by 64 times.
Computing power doubles every 18 months, so in 180 months [15 years] computing power goes up 1024 times. Exponential growth wins over polynomial growth. Put a million computers to work, if need be.

The Sun has increased its direct radiative forcing of the Earth by between 20% and 30% since the Earth has obtained an oxygen-rich atmosphere.

If radiative forcing directly affects warming then the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.

The climate system is bi-stable. It has had similar temperatures in glacial and interglacial periods despite very different amounts of radiative forcing. And that is why the Earth has sustained life forms to the present day.

____
Your own examples prove you wrong…(except the “I almost wet myself” comment, as that is a personal matter)

Why was the earth warmer in the past when the sun’s output was lower by 30% Could it be the radiative forcing of GH gases, which were much higher then? Suggest you read:

The natural aerosols (isoprene, dimethylsulfide, etc) produced by plants and microscopic ocean organisms will have to be factored in also. Think of the ‘smoke’ in the Great Smokey Mountains, or that occurred in the Los Angeles area long before we had a city there…

Aug 10, 2009
Aerosol formation by plants: the missing link

Deciduous plants such as trees give off around 500 teragrammes of carbon each year in the form of isoprene (C5H8). In remote areas such as the Amazon, where there is little nitric oxide (NO) produced by biomass and fossil fuel burning, the chemistry of what happens to the compound as it forms aerosol particles has to date been unclear.

Frank K. says:
August 26, 2011 at 10:36 am
That’s why I challenge the modelers to write down ALL of the relevant equations that their codes are using, including the numerical approximations (GISS still hasn’t done this for Model E).

“As far as I know, the code is published for all to see.”

OK Leif – since the code is there for you see, please use the code listing to write down all of the differential equations, boundary conditions, and auxiliary relations that are being solved. Please … take your time … and let us know when you’re done.

(And after Leif is done with that, he can write down and describe in detail the numerical algorithms that are used to solve those equations).

the job is difficult. Steady progress might get us there. All the talk about ‘the models do what the programmers put in there without knowing what they are doing’ is just nonsense….

Computing power doubles every 18 months, so in 180 months [15 years] computing power goes up 1024 times. Exponential growth wins over polynomial growth. Put a million computers to work, if need be.

So it’s a sales pitch:
“Send more money! smaller gridcells will get us to the promised land.”

Not with a built-in positive cloud feedback they won’t.

Somehow, I doubt people will want to pay another 80-90 billion dollarsfor another 15 years of the same shenanigans. They will want independent auditors to scrutinise the current product, and an end to the secrecy and prevarication before they cough up that sort of cash.

Mind you, once it becomes clear that the climate is wimbling cooler for 30 years or more, I think they’ll feel a bit cheated.

Smokey says: August 26, 2011 at 1:53 pm
AGW is not a theory.
____
OMG! Really? Then what is all the fuss about?

All the fuss is about an unproven hypothesis that is nowhere close to becoming a theory. The problem, of course, is that the very base terminology has been grossly dumbed down in the general public and as we clearly see here, as a result is commonly misused and greatly misunderstood. The problem isn’t helped when scientists themselves, myself included, pop in and out of common usege vs. the real scientific terminology and the weighty meaning carried with it. That some people like R. Gates goes around pontificating on exactly how global warming works and has time travelled and done all the necessary research to prove things such as CO2 is the thermostat of warming throughout all history, yet doesn’t know the difference between a theory and hypothesis enough to recognize what Smokey is getting at just shows what a sad state of affairs our educational system is in along with the general state of scientific knowledge in the general public. Meanwhile there are grad students in ‘climate science’ no less, such as Chris Colese, who also seems to have missed or ignored some of the basic tenets of science – and practicing scientists out there who think that ‘post normal science’ is not only acceptable, but a good thing which they practice personally, teach, and promote – when in reality it is utterly anathema to the very idea of science.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are “scientific law,” “hypothesis,” and “theory.”

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle’s law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term “theory” in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say “hypothesis.” That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part–the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

* Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
* Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible answer, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
* Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
* Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: “Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not.”
* Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
* In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.

Useful Prediction: If I leave food items open to the air, they will spoil. If I want to keep them from spoiling, I will keep them covered.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called “theories” based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don’t depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.

I use the analysis from finite element analysis (FEA) models regularly in my work, and a I respect the ability they have – within their limits – to predict the theoretical outcome of simplified problems in perfect (simulated) models of a simplified reality very well.

But …

A valid FEA 9accurate to the real world!) requires the following:

Analysis “equations” that are uniform and representative at all boundary position all of the relevant boundary conditions. That is, the exact boundary changes (the first order and second order differential equations) at every boundary must be complete and exact and correct in ALL relevant conditions under ALL relevant changes to EVERY relevant extent required by the problem solution. It doesn’t matter whether the modeler (the programmer, in the words of earlier writers) “thinks” he has included all relevant condition of equations or changes, but it only matters whether he/she HAS included every relevant change and every relevant condition before the FEA analysis begins. This “knowledge” of conditions and changes being “exchanged” between every border must be correct;y exchanged between cells across every border between cells correctly; and it must be available for criticism and comparison with reality in every degree.

For example, if cell 1,1,1 has a relative humidity and temperature and pressure and wind and radiation of x,y,z, aa,bb; then does that “information” of energy difference get correctly exchanged with a cell north and east and higher in attitude with it during every analysis phase of the problem? Or do they only exchange with east, south, north and west (at the same altitude?) ? Do they only exchange “information” with those above and below them?

Second, does this “exchange” of information actually reflect what is going on the 1 km x 1 km x 1km “cells” of the real world?

Does EVERY cell have the “correct land or sea basis for its “bottom”?
Does every cell rotate through space correctly, spinning and changing radiation levels as there solar year changes correctly and exactly? (That is , does the “top” of every cell reflect the real world? Or some idealized theoretical “Average” world?)

Further, those qualified and trusted FEA models have carefully crafted cells of uniform volume, side walls, and position to re-create their models of the real world in every dimension as close as possible: cell grids are uniform. Cell heights are as uniform as possible through the thickness of the (uniform) material, and are exactly stopped at material boundaries – where property characteristics change abruptly.

Therefore, I challenge every proponent of their vaunted global circulation models to show the real cell sizes in every dimension at every latitude. What are the actual altitude thicknesses in every cell? What are the land and sea values at every cell at model startup? ARE there land and sea values at evry cell – and if so, how are they approximated as teh real world land and sea values change?

Can a CGM proponent “show me” the cells that correspond to Greenland? Sahara? Saudi peninsula? Australia? The Arctic Ocean? Europe? The Alps? The Rockies? The Andes? The Himalayan mountains? Gobi Desert? If not, how can yo pretend these represent the real world? Can you “assume” that you have modeled the real world 100 years, much less 1000 years from now, if you cannot show “snow” on the Gobi and on Antarctica in the right season of the year to the right level?

What cell properties and land (bottom) and “top” properties change as you go north/south in latitude? Do the cell sizes change? If not, how are property characteristics changed as cell boundaries change as you go towards the poles?

If the cell sizes change geometrically as you further north/south, prove that the differential equations change so the proper and proportional changes in mass and energy change at every cell boundary at every altitude.

How are information “quantities” and their second order differentials changed across cell boundaries – and prove it! – as you change the areas of cell walls as you go further north, further south, further “up” in altitude?

Thanks for that very concise explanation. There is a similar one here.

Words matter. By using incorrect and clearly inappropriate terms, the alarmist crowd ends up with very muddled thinking. Wrongly referring to the AGW conjecture / hypothesis as a “theory” ignores the well documented fact that the AGW hypothesis has been unable to make accurate, replicable and testable predictions.

There is no testable physical evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of the current [very mild] warming cycle. There is only correlation, which may – or may not – turn out to physically connect CO2 rises with subsequent warming. At this point there is no testable evidence showing such a connection, therefore the AGW hypothesis cannot be a scientific theory.

Volker from the report by a University that I found on the special features section of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ regarding studying the fluctuation in fish numbers over some years.
Cosmic rays are subatomic particles generated by either the Big Bang or a Super Nova.
Possibly subatomic particles is a better description. But their impact is moderated or lessened during solar activity. You are right, too, well explained.

The descriptions of the Scientific Method that have been concocted by philosophers and sociologists over the last century have usually proved a Procrustian bed which fails to capture the full complexity of how science actually advances.
You quote Kepler’s Laws of planetary motion as an example. But they started of as simplifying assumptions made at least in part to make the math easier. It was only when Gravity provided a physical justification that they were elevated to ‘Laws’ like the equal area rule.

Of course they are still simplifying assumptions, in the real world the solar system is a multi-body problem with bi-directional non-linear interactions. This makes it deterministically chaotic with inherent unpredictability.
Luckily for Kepler and NASA the timescale of our interest in planetary orbits lies within ‘usefully predictable’ window of the simplifying assumptions.

Kirkby made the simplifying assumption that aerosol nucleation would occur with H2O H2SO4 NH3 in Air.
He got a negative result, with negligible effect from ionizing radiation at low altitude conditions.

It will be interesting to see whether the formation of aerosol nuclei are amplified by ionizing radiation when the organic volatiles like DMS and terpines are added to the mix…

If you want to find fault with the scientific method in climate research on the AGW theory then compare it with similar research that was successful rather than the passing paradigm of the socio-philosophers. The development of our understanding of the dangers of trace amounts of CFCs and Sox/Nox are the examples of the scientific method functioning successfully in a similar field. What happened in those cases may not fit into the Logical positivists/Popperian/Pragmaticism conception of scientific methodology, but are how science really functions.

@- Smokey
“AGW is an evidence-free hypothesis that cannot make accurate, testable predictions. A theory has at least one nontrivial validating datum. AGW has none.”

AGW theory claims anthropogenic CO2 is increasing global temperature. Because of the physical process invoked by the theory the warming would be predicted to be of greater magnitude at night, at high latitudes and confined to the lower troposphere with cooling of the stratosphere.
The measured warming, and its pattern of distribution, the measured changes in the magnitude and spectra of the TOA emissions and the surface back radiation and the measured changes in CO2 levels fingerprinted by the isotope ration to human sources are the ‘validating datum’ in your terminology.

The AGW theory is comparable in many ways with the ozone depletion theory by CFCs.
Or are you disputing the status of THAT as a successful scientific theory which made predictions which measurement confirmed ?

anna v says:
August 26, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“The intellectual dishonesty in your link comes from using the model validated on 20 days for climate projections because “how could such expensive computer outputs be wrong?”
I don’t know anybody who actually thinks so [with the exception of some commenters here]. That the models are no good is not because the modellers are morons or dishonest, but because the job is difficult. Steady progress might get us there. All the talk about ‘the models do what the programmers put in there without knowing what they are doing’ is just nonsense. That people make policy based on faith in the models is their fault, not the modellers. A people have the politicians they deserve.

I agree that the job is difficult and I cannot see how people with a phd can be morons. This leaves the scientific ethics question open. There are many many people who doubt the ethics of people like Hansen and Gavin et al. Actually any physicist who has tried to get to the bottom of the data/model-output comparison comes out swinging.

I also agree that computer models are a great tool, the greatest invention after the slide rule.

I agree that people have the politicians they deserve, but the fact is that most “scientists” in climatology have enthusiastically followed the leaders of the global warming mantra, mainly to get published and get grants, it is true, but they offered a “consensus” for the politicians and profiteers to be based on.

From the introduction in your link:as examples of what gains may be obtained in both
numerical weather prediction (NWP) and climate simulation
by investing in higher resolution global simulations.
We have performed a series of 20‐day NWP simulations at
3.5‐ to 28‐km globally, as well as 7‐month seasonal climate
simulations at 14‐km. We will examine the impact of
improved resolution on mid‐latitude cyclogenesis, tropical
convection, tropical cyclone structure, and the seasonal
tropical climate.
(bold mine)

If you cannot see that in the publication a successful comparisons within 7 months and in specific regions, weather model output is being pushed subtly as climate ( i.e. a jump of 30 years), what can I say .

Rational Debate says:
August 26, 2011 at 3:40 pmLeif, dividing your chart that I already looked at into two parts doesn’t address my question/point.
Then I don’t know what your point is/was. Solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was as high as in the 20th, yet the temperatures were significantly lower. The temperature response to a step change in TSI is investigated here http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL048623.pdf of course it takes a thousand years or more to change the temperature of the deep ocean, but note that half of the total temperature change takes place in the first 15 years: figure 2.

anna v says:
August 26, 2011 at 8:47 pmThis leaves the scientific ethics question open. There are many many people who doubt the ethics of people like Hansen and Gavin et al.
Not ALL modelers are like Hansen et al.

Well I did. It says a lot about your “logic” – replying to an issue about the “dim sun” solar radiative increase over billions of years with an article concerning the last 20,000 years. Master of the non-sequitur as always.

The article is edited by Susan Solomon, a politician and AGW activist but not really a scientist. The abstract also contains this ass-backward inverted logic:

Actually ladies, what is well known from ice cores is that they show CO2 levels rising consistently several centuries AFTER temperature rises, proving that CO2 change is the effect, not the cause of temperature change.

This CLOUD experiment in the lab, showing cloud seeding in a controlled study of atmospheric chemistry, is reminiscent of the famous study by Miller and Urey in the 1950s where ammonia, methane and other gasses were incubated in a simulated primordial atmosphere, and creation of biological molecules such as amino acids was interpreted as pointing to how life could have originated.

The political and societal reaction to both these studies is instructive. Both are demonstrations only of chemical processes in a highly controlled environment, and not in themselves conclusive proof of either abiogenesis or cosmic ray climate forcing. However the political and media reaction to both was diametrically opposite.

Urey and Miller’s experiment became scientific orthodoxy almost overnight, since it served a political and cultural need to attack Christianity (as if all Christians were 6-day creationists). All biology text books dutifully trotted out Miller and Urey’s work as established fact about the origin of life.

Now however an equivalent piece of work – in fact a stronger and better controlled demonstration of GCR related atmospheric chemistry, has curiously not been welcomed so enthusiastically. Since it undermines the political dogma of AGW, there is this wide-ranging attempt to discredit it. The dishonesty, duplicity and cynicism of the mandarins of the media and scientific-political establishment is clearly in evidence.

I read Gavin’s response to this story and found it to be one of the more reasonable responses I’ve read yet. No fanboy stuff, rather cold and linear. I tend to believe this story is unfinished, but favors the skeptic more than the whacked out, bat turd crazy Gavinesque alarmist view, but I’m also trying to project a softer, more conciliatory tone into the debate.

“If you want to find fault with the scientific method in climate research on the AGW theory then compare it with similar research that was successful rather than the passing paradigm of the socio-philosophers.”

There is no need to look outside climate science. The work of Svensmark and the work of Kirkby are entirely in accordance with scientific method. They have no trouble with it, so why should others?

The train wreck that is CAGW occurred because gullible politicians and media people believed that computer models can substitute for physical hypotheses. As I have explained here today, that is not possible. Scientific method teaches this fact. If our citizenry became conversant with scientific method there would be no train wrecks of the CAGW sort.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 2:34 pm
The basic terminology of scientific method
“You have demonstrated that you can cut and paste, but have not shown that you understand or have any experience with what you pasted. How often do you apply the ‘scientific method’?”

You are committing libel against me. I wrote every word in that post while sitting here at this computer today. Leif, I can explain scientific method. I can explain its use. I can explain the importance of its use. You have nothing to say on any of these matters. When you say that you understand scientific method, you are bluffing.

“Kirkby follows the scientific method religiously. He designed his experiment in a controlled environment so that he could investigate the interactions among water vapor, sulphuric acid, ammonia, cosmic rays, and nothing else. To his surprise, he learned that those four ingredients are not sufficient to create low flying clouds in Earth’s atmosphere.
So, following the scientific method, he has now disproved the hypothesis, as you admit: “4. Confirmation: the event of discovering that a prediction correctly describes observable fact and, for that reason, has been found to be true” which in his case he did not find, thus disproving the hypothesis.”

Scientific method does not guarantee that you will find your hypothesis confirmed. It guarantees that your hypothesis will be tested against the real world. Kirkby was surprised by disconfirming evidence but realized that the discovery of his false prediction was more valuable than his original hypothesis. So, he is off on a new hypothesis. That is how scientists should proceed.

“You prescribe what they are supposed to find [just like the IPCC] or describe what you wish them to find. You call that the ‘scientific method’?”

Gaia modelers have no physical hypotheses about cloud formation. Kirkby just demonstrated that. Because they have no physical hypotheses then they should Stand Down on the question of global warming until they have a reasonably well confirmed set of physical hypotheses.

Leif Svalgaard and R.Gates are certainly in denial. They seem to have no clue of the scientific method. AGW theory and computer models are not reality, not proven and in fact are massive failures when tested against empirical evidence. No amount of waffling can obscure the truth.

Leif Svalgaard says
Then I don’t know what your point is/was. Solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was as high as in the 20th, yet the temperatures were significantly lower.

Henry
Pity we have no arial pictures of earth that time but I will bet with you that earth has become a lot greener since that time. As the CO2 increases, so it acts as a fertilizer and accelerator for photosynthesis.

It is the increase in greenery and forests that is causing some “additional” warming, on top of the normal warming which indeed is because of more sunshine and/or less clouds. Hence the reason why the warming is not “global”. So everybody is a little bit right here, including those believing in the AGW theory, ehh, eh, hypothesis.

Anyone can check this theory by looking at temps. where forests have increased or decreased.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
— C.S. Lewis

It is now clear that you really, really do want to prove you are an idiot again and again and again…

Your latest gem of idiocy is at August 26, 2011 at 4:21 pm.
You had asserted that radiative forcing directly causes warming which, of course, it does not so I had pointed out that it does not.

You repeated your silly and ignorant assertion so I stated two different pieces of evidence that would show anybody of average (or higher than average) intelligence that radiative forcing does NOT directly cause warming.

These were
(a) radiative forcing from the Sun has increased by more than 20% with no discernible resulting warming
and
(b) the Earth is bi-stable in that it has similar temperature in each glacial and each interglacial period despite much different amounts of radiative forcing.

Your reply says to me;
“Your own examples prove you wrong [snip]
Why was the earth warmer in the past when the sun’s output was lower by 30% Could it be the radiative forcing of GH gases, which were much higher then? Suggest you read:http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.full
But you probably won’t.”

Of course I read it. There was a small possibility that I might learn from it so I wanted to read it. But, of course, you failed to understand I would read it because the idea that anybody would want to learn is alien to you.

And what does it say; its title tells all
“Rates of change in natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing over the past 20,000 years”.

I gave two examples:
one was a steady change over the last 2.5 billion years
and
the other was glacial and interglacial conditions over millions of years.

@- Richard S Courtney says:
August 27, 2011 at 1:04 am
“You had asserted that radiative forcing directly causes warming which, of course, it does not so I had pointed out that it does not.
You repeated your silly and ignorant assertion so I stated two different pieces of evidence that would show anybody of average (or higher than average) intelligence that radiative forcing does NOT directly cause warming.”

Anybody of average intelligence might notice that NEITHER of your examples are correct. As the Sun increased its output over billions of years the Earth certainly DID warn, compare the Ordovician snowball Earth with the Jurassic ice-free planet. Of course a lot of those paleoclimate changes are associated with changes in CO2 levels….
The glacial-interglacial cycles in the last few million years have NOT had much different radiative forcing, the changes in CO2 levels have been limited, until now – unless you have evidence that shows otherwise ?

If radiative forcing does not alter surface temperature you are going to have a big problem explaining why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

I am still waiting for a reply to my earlier question about what you think I was denying, and whether you dispute that the preliminary result from this experiment appear to REFUTE Svenmark’s hypothesis that GCRs affect low clouds. –
-”We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.”-

Well some American republicans such a Rick Perry are threatening to withdrew any more payments to the IPCC and UNCCF (United Nations Climate Change Fund) for good reason.
It’s only our stupid Minister Combet who after Kevin Rudd signed the Kyoto to say they would
not only cut emissions but pay the climate fund $600 million a year. Then Rudd dropped the ETS. Gillard is quoted as saying ‘There will be no carbon tax while I lead government’ but a hung parliament in August 2010 made her hang on by getting the support of the Greens in the House of Reps (1) and Senate, and the stupid Independents well four out of five of them. The Americans were wise not to be pulled into this. And even India is not going ahead, China, Canada and several other countries will not even attend the Durban conference in November to renew the Kyoto agreement. Well if we still have a government then we shall see. Don’t know about the UK
but they are worried about the EU commitment.

Rational Debate says:
August 26, 2011 at 5:35 pm ….
and Smokey ….
Thanks for taking the time and clarify. Yes you are right, words really matter. I have not seen CAGW being more then a hypothesis pushed to be a theory by the CAGW group.
izen says:
August 26, 2011 at 8:46 pm
“AGW theory claims anthropogenic CO2 is increasing global temperature. Because of the physical process invoked by the theory the warming would be predicted to be of greater magnitude at night, at high latitudes and confined to the lower troposphere with cooling of the stratosphere.”
The hypothesis is based on very weak described physical mechanism, using only radiation and “back radiation” concept, ignoring thermodynamics, modeling based on these assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
But the very base physical mechanism of heat transfer is not clarified, not properly described, quantified and tested. This is what makes CAGW a hypothesis and not a theory.

Venter says:
August 27, 2011 at 12:46 am
Leif Svalgaard and R.Gates are certainly in denial. They seem to have no clue of the scientific method. AGW theory and computer models are not reality, not proven and in fact are massive failures when tested against empirical evidence. No amount of waffling can obscure the truth.

Venter must have a highly impressive scientific research track record. Either that or he is incredibly stupid. I, for one, would be reluctant to claim that one of the foremost solar researchers over the last 40 years had “no clue of the scientific method” – no matter how convinced I was of my own argument.

Regarding his(her) point about models and ‘theory’. The ‘theory’ does not rely on the models. There are a number of scientists (e.g. Richard Lindzen) who believe the models are wrong but who, nevertheless, accept the fact that increasing CO2 concentration is likely to result in higher temperatures than would otherwise be the case.

Emission spectra, viewed from satellites, tells us that energy centred on 15 micron wavelength is radiated predominantly from CO2 in the higher, drier regions of the troposphere. CO2 is clearly influential at these altitudes.

You have nothing to say on any of these matters. When you say that you understand scientific method, you are bluffing.
Comment on the above.
You may also benefit from reading: http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 10:58 pmKirkby was surprised by disconfirming evidence but realized that the discovery of his false prediction was more valuable than his original hypothesis. So, he is off on a new hypothesis. That is how scientists should proceed.
Indeed, but it also means that his old hypothesis was falsified, which was my point all along.

Theo Goodwin says:
August 26, 2011 at 11:02 pmGaia modelers have no physical hypotheses about cloud formation. Kirkby just demonstrated that.
Kitkby did nothing of the kind. On the contrary, he just demonstrated that his own hypothesis was wrong.

“I am still waiting for a reply to my earlier question about what you think I was denying, and whether you dispute that the preliminary result from this experiment appear to REFUTE Svenmark’s hypothesis that GCRs affect low clouds. –
-”We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.”-”

Sorry, I did not reply to your question because thought the answer was so obvious that even you would understand it. But, since you have again asked, I provide this brief answer.

The CLOUD experiment has proved that GCRs induce aerosol droplets that can be cloud nuclei.

The existing finding indicates that the initial nucleation provides most such droplets that are much too small to be cloud nuclei and that combination of such droplets would be required to induce the degree of observed cloud changes. Those observed cloud changes are important because they provide severe doubt to the AGW-hypothesis.

Clouds reflect solar heat and a mere 2% increase to cloud cover would more than compensate for the maximum possible predicted warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air. Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).

Also, as you say, the CLOUD experiment only considered the direct effect of GCRs on cloud nucleation and the GCRs only reach down to the mid-troposphere. But interactions of GCRs with atmospheric particles cause secondary particles that cascade down through he lower atmosphere. These, too, have potential to be cloud nuclei.

There is an on-going study at CERNE which will detemine
(a) the probability of secondary particles inducing cloud nuclei in the lower troposphere
and
(b) the probability of small droplets coalescing.

There would be no reason for this on-going study if the CLOUD experiment had failed to find that GCRs do induce cloud nucleation.

But you assert that
“this experiment appear to REFUTE Svenmark’s hypothesis that GCRs affect low clouds”.

That is a clear denial of the fact that the CLOUD experiment confirmed the possibility of the Svensmark Effect which is why the on-going study is to be conducted.

phlogiston says:
August 26, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Actually ladies, what is well known from ice cores is that they show CO2 levels rising consistently several centuries AFTER temperature rises, proving that CO2 change is the effect, not the cause of temperature change.

No it doesn’t prove that, at all. Atmospheric CO2 levels do respond to SST but there is no reason to suppose that CO2 levels cannot increase independently if an alternative source is identified (e.g. fossil fuel burning). The CO2/temperature lag over the glacial/interglacial periods is reasonably well understood. However, over ~5000 years, the CO2 increase was just ~100ppm (180ppm -> 280ppm) in response to a temperature increase of 5-6 deg. Since 1850 (~160 years) the CO2 increase has been ~110ppm while the temperature has only risen by ~0.7 deg.

Fossil fuel burning produces ~7 to 8 GtC per annum. The increase in the atmosphere is ~3 to 4 GtC per annum. CO2 concentrations in the oceans is increasing nor decreasing, i.e. they are not releasing more CO2, so where do you think the atmospheric increase might be coming from?

To remind the readers UV is about 1% TSI, small indeed but potent. It creates ozone among other things and appears to have played an important role in DNA mutation which may have resulted in us. One part in 100 is small but 320 ppm CO2 is orders of magnitude smaller yet is thought to be the primary agent for climate catastrophe if it were to increase by a tiny 100 ppm more. I am not sure of that one but my point is UV at 1% may trigger unknown secondary events so let’s not be too dismissive about its possible affects on climate just yet. UV does fluctuate more than certain other components in TSI as most readers here know. Just as a small 2 inch deflection on the gas pedal having a dramatic change in the speed of my F-150 Ford, small variations in UV might control bigger things here on Terra Firma.

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) (Brightness) is Not Important.
Changes in the Magnetic Shielding (sunspots) from the Sun Clauses Climate Change on Earth.

The Thermal Mass of the Oceans slows rate of temperature change on Earth, thus there is a delay before we notice the effect.

Sunspots since 1880 from NASA.

Look at the Data from NASA.
There is your Global Warming, and recent Global Cooling.

It is Not Important if you agree with it or believe it.
It has been Physically Proven by Experiment, not by computer simulation or computer modeling, but by Actual Physical Experiment.
It is now a Fact.
Climate Change on Earth is Caused by changes the Magnetic Output of the Sun.
Carbon Dioxide is Irrelevant.

I stand by my comments. If you don’t understand the difference between science and scientific method, I can’t help it. Rational debate, Theo Goodwin, Richard Courtney et. al have stated specifically what the scientific method is. Let Leif show validation of his models based on that method, with empirical evidence, to show that the models are correct and that they have been tested and verified against empirical evidence. Till then those models have worth only in his eyes.

And if you have empirical evidence validating the AGW theory and models, bring it on, and show it.

It may have escaped your attention, but based on this theory and unverified models, billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money are being spent affecting millions of people worldwide under the scare of CO2 and ‘Carbon Pollution’. So these unverified models and this unverified theory is affecting and hitting people worldwide real time. And that’s the scam here.

Play all you want with the models, but stay way from my pocket and the public’s pockets. Play with your money.

Richard S Courtney says:
August 27, 2011 at 3:39 am
The existing finding indicates that the initial nucleation provides most such droplets that are much too small to be cloud nuclei and that combination of such droplets would be required to induce the degree of observed cloud changes. Those observed cloud changes are important because they provide severe doubt to the AGW-hypothesis .

How do observed cloud changes provide “severe doubt to the AGW hypothesis”. They might, perhaps, provide an argument against the higher end climate sensitivity figures – if global temperatures fail to rise – but that doesn’t mean AGW isn’t happening.

The solar crowd have painted themselves into a corner. As David Archibald showed recently, solar activity over the past 2-3 cycles is closely tracking activity in the 20-odd years leading up to and including the onset of the Dalton Minimum. Temperatures both regionally and globally are at least a degree above those in 1800 (despite almost identical solar activity). Something needs to happen soon.

Andrew 30 and denier. Well said. I think some could change the record eh (vinyl) They will argue the back leg off a donkey. Cheers off to bed now my time is 10..21 pm. And I am giving a film interview tomorrow. Have to be clear eyed and wide awake. Not on climate change though.

That was already known and is uncontroversial. The ambient ionizing radiation, much of it from cosmic rays, produces charged particles that are a key component of forming aerosol nuclei.
That they CAN be the basis for cloud condensation nuclei is also agreed, but whether the amount of small (2-3nm) particles has much effect on the eventual number of much larger CCNs is unknown. The best present guess is that there is little influence from variations in the rate of production of small nuclei on the rate of production of CCNs. –

-“Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. ”

It turns out that much if not all of that apparent decrease in cloudiness was the result of the improving satellite coverage. A geometric error in calculating cloud cover from satellite images meant fewer oblique views reduced the reported coverage.

-“Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. ”

Source for this claim please… and how much of that albedo change would be the result of reduced spring snow cover and the melting ice ? A known positive feedback with warming!

“Also, as you say, the CLOUD experiment only considered the direct effect of GCRs on cloud nucleation and the GCRs only reach down to the mid-troposphere. ”

No, GALACTIC cosmic rays are the high energy particles that do have ionising effects at low altitudes and are the component of the cosmic ray flux that is modulated by solar activity.
Svenmark suggests that it is when solar activity is high that Galactic cosmic rays are reduced, reducing low cloud that has a cooling effect.
But during high solar activity the cosmic rays that are from the SUN increase, however these are of lower energy and probably penetrate only into the upper atmosphere, producing their shower of ions in the stratosphere and upper troposphere.

Svenmark specifically invokes the high energy, deeply penetrating Galactic cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity as the key player in changing low cloud albedo.
He does not AFAIK mention any increase in high thin cloud from the solar wind/cosmic rays when the SUNs’ activity increases.
But ironically the CERN results would seem to point to that –

-”We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer.”-”

Perhaps you could float a new speculation, that AGW has an alternative in the increase solar sourced cosmic rays during the recent solar activity maximum has induced the formation of more high thin clouds that have a warming ‘Greenhouse’ effect !
Of course Leif might point to the data that indicates that no such climate effects appeared during past similar episodes of solar activity….

@-Andrew30 says:
August 27, 2011 at 4:59 am
“Look at the Data from NASA. There is your Global Warming, and recent Global Cooling.”

I can see how there SHOULD be recent global cooling if CO2 is irrelevant and sunspot number controls it all as they peaked in the 1960s.
But while the global Stock Market levels seem to have ‘cooled’ to 1990s numbers the global temperature is is WAY above values for a decade or more ago and could not by any stretch be called ‘cooling’

Sean U can Google it. But don’t take any notice of any AGW fanatics sites. Look for ‘Little Ice Age can return’ or Ice not fire Al? . You see a warming period does proceed an ice age. What goes up comes down again. Earth is self regulating really. Humans have changed the landscape though much to our chagrin. I suspect he is on broadband or optic fibre. It doesn’t matter what the CO2 is as it hasn’t had any influence and remember the volcanoes that were more active in the glacial period/s than now. Japan wasn’t permanently occupied until 8,000 years ago (nor was North America or Canada) regarding the amount of seismic activity there. And interesting it was the temps were not that much colder in Australia well 5 c, depending where they were taken of course. Anyway I am off to bed, see you all tomorrow.

Venter says:
August 27, 2011 at 5:09 amLet Leif show validation of his models based on that method, with empirical evidence, to show that the models are correct and that they have been tested and verified against empirical evidence.
It would be helpful if you would pay attention to the debate. The issue was not whether the models are wrong [which they are], but whether it makes sense to model at all [which it does].

“If radiative forcing does not alter surface temperature you are going to have a big problem explaining why Venus is hotter than Mercury.”

It’s not at all difficult to explain. It’s the same reason that the earth’s mantle is hotter than anywhere on Mercury. Mercury wasn’t able to retain a molten core. It’s too small and lacks an atmosphere. Venus’ uber-dense atmosphere insulates the surface so well that its internal heat from the molten core rises much farther into the crustal rocks. On earth the atmosphere is far thinner and not able to insulate the crust such that internal heat can build up at the surface of the crust but if you dig down a ways the earth is hotter than anywhere on Mercury.

The surface temperature on Venus IS because of the atmosphere trapping heat but it IS NOT because the atmosphere is trapping heat from the sun. The atmosphere is trapping heat from the molten core of the planet. In fact the surface of Venus gets no sunlight at all.

It is now a Fact.
Climate Change on Earth is Caused by changes the Magnetic Output of the Sun.
Carbon Dioxide is Irrelevant.
———/
Wow! So we can just throw out all the data that show the strong correlation between Milankovitch cycles and climate over the last few million years eh? You should get Nobel Prize for this “fact” that you’ve discovered!

@John Finn
Fossil fuel burning produces ~7 to 8 GtC per annum. The increase in the atmosphere is ~3 to 4 GtC per annum. CO2 concentrations in the oceans is increasing nor decreasing, i.e. they are not releasing more CO2, so where do you think the atmospheric increase might be coming from?
======================
Let’s stipulate your numbers IIMO your ranges are abit to tight). You are asking phlogiston to explain the appearance of extra 3-4 Gtc, could your explain where is the extra 3-4 Gtc disappearing that seems to be unaccounted for in your narrative.

It would be helpful if you switch off the models and pay attention to the real world debates and effects going on.

The issue is not about whether to model or not. Models can be used a tools to assist in science but their output is to be verified and validated against empirical evidence. Nobody says that one should not model. By all means, build a model, test the assumptions and then validate the model against real data. And when the results don’t match the model assumptions or the hypothesis is wrong, not the data.

The issue discussed is about model predictions being treated as gospel and policy being made on that. That is the reality of the situation today. The issue is about none of the models being used in AGW circuit being verified or tested or validated. Yet billions are being spent and lives affected based upon model outputs which have not withstood the data test and bizarrely AGW modellers claim data is wrong when model outputs are contradicted by data.

So when something like Svensmark’s theory and Kirby’s work comes up to show that modellers haven’t even understood or considered other confounding factors affecting climate because of their total fixation on ACO2, the rest of us have to yell out and say, hang on, your models are wrong and you haven’t understood or modelled all the fundamental variables affecting climate. And we demand total verification, testing and validation of every model and demand that no more policy decisions be taken or money be spent based on models and theory which have been found fundamentally faulty. And when the AGW crowd refuse to show any data or information about any of their assumptions or inputs and they’ve also been shown to indulge in unethical practices, dodgy statistics, peer review gaming etc., all trust is gone on climate science and all bets are off.

I have no doubt that you are a honest and sincere scientist with an excellent track record. But the problem is that climate science as a whole has been tainted due to the antics of the AGW promoting climate science clique who have taken control of this field. And they have been allowed to go unchecked and untrammeled because of the silence of the rest of the climate scientists who did not make their voices heard and condemn bad practices and shoddy science.

So unless the rest of climate science speaks up, shuts out the miscreants, shows all data, methods and computer codes and allows it to be tested by all skeptics and show that they can withstand the testing and are reliable, please don’t feel offended if none of us believe anything any climate scientist says about models. The climate science field has shown itself to be unethical and unreliable and needs a complete clean out to restore respect to this branch of science.

——
Wow! Then you will need to explain how the Russian space probes that landed on Venus took photos of the surface! It would be pitch black with “no sunlight at all”, but I’m sure you can explain this and other amazing science facts on the way to get your Nobel Prize.

I have since been saying that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere acts as fertilizer and accelerator for (green) growth.
I found some strong evidence that it is cooling where there is much de-forestation and warming where there is increased forestry.
I have been trying to gather all the reasons why there is more warming in the NH and almost no warming in the SH. Your picture in that link shows more phyto plankton in the NH, is that correct? Do you know why?

At August 27, 2011 at 5:21 am you accurately quote from my post at August 27, 2011 at 3:39 am saying;
“The existing finding indicates that the initial nucleation provides most such droplets that are much too small to be cloud nuclei and that combination of such droplets would be required to induce the degree of observed cloud changes. Those observed cloud changes are important because they provide severe doubt to the AGW-hypothesis .”

Then ou ask me:

“How do observed cloud changes provide “severe doubt to the AGW hypothesis”. They might, perhaps, provide an argument against the higher end climate sensitivity figures – if global temperatures fail to rise – but that doesn’t mean AGW isn’t happening.”

There is much evidence that “AGW isn’t happening”; e.g. the missing ‘hot spot’, the ‘missing heat’, the missing ‘commited warming’, etc. Hence, severe doubt to the AGW hypothesis is provided by any possible and empirically supported alternative hypothesis which addresses the cause of recent global warming.

Please read the paragraph in my post from which you quote that says;

“Clouds reflect solar heat and a mere 2% increase to cloud cover would more than compensate for the maximum possible predicted warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air. Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).”

Please do not try to pretend that does not provide severe doubt to the AGW hypothesis.

Venter says:
August 27, 2011 at 5:09 am
“It may have escaped your attention, but based on this theory and unverified models, billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money are being spent affecting millions of people worldwide under the scare of CO2 and ‘Carbon Pollution’. So these unverified models and this unverified theory is affecting and hitting people worldwide real time. And that’s the scam here.”

This is exactly what AGWers who chirp out the word “denier” refuse to acknowledge.
Perhaps we should call for the denial of public funds that supports their scare tactics.

As an aside, take a look at the forecasting (take note I said forecasting not predicting) that has been taking place in regards to Irene. Even when using models programmed to analyse real data based on past performances they are only useful as guides and estimates. They are by no means the final word although GFS seems to be the most reliable.

@-Dave Springer says:
August 27, 2011 at 5:48 am
“The surface temperature on Venus IS because of the atmosphere trapping heat but it IS NOT because the atmosphere is trapping heat from the sun. The atmosphere is trapping heat from the molten core of the planet. In fact the surface of Venus gets no sunlight at all.”

Dave, I love this explanation….
Of course it requires that the atmosphere is such a powerful insulator that it prevents the higher surface temperature from being lost to space, a prime example of radiative forcing!
I also await with great interest just what light the pictures of the surface of Venus were taken with if it was not (diffused) sunlight. The glow from a nearby volcano perhaps, or did the probes use flash photography ?!

@- DEEBEE says:
August 27, 2011 at 5:52 am
“You are asking phlogiston to explain the appearance of extra 3-4 Gtc, could your explain where is the extra 3-4 Gtc disappearing that seems to be unaccounted for in your narrative.”

Increased biomass on land and in the oceans and increased chemical absorption in the oceans causing the reduction in pH.
However the constraints on the CO2 sinks are one of the big unknowns. There are few possible mechanisms to absorb or remove vastly increased quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere, at least in short human timescales. But there ARE a number of credible processes that could release vast quantities of CO2. It has happened before… -PETM?

Wave your arms and try to change the subject as much as you want but I will not waste more time on you and – try as you may – it is extremely unlikely that you will overtake R Gates for illogicality so I suggest that you stop trying.

“The issue was not whether the models are wrong [which they are], but whether it makes sense to model at all [which it does].”

If I understand you correctly, then I strongly agree with you. The models are very useful heuristic tools.

However, the models are being misused as predictive tools and that misuse converts them into being mere computer games.

No model’s predictions should be trusted unless the model has demonstrated forecasting skill.

None of the climate models has existed for 20, 50 or 100 years so it is not possible to assess their predictive capability on the basis of their demonstrated forecasting skill; i.e. they have no demonstrated forecasting skill and, therefore, their predictions are unreliable.

The ability of a computer model to appear to represent existing reality is no guide to the model’s predictive ability. For example, the computer model called ‘F1 Racing’ is commercially available. It is based on physical principles (if it were not then the racing cars would not behave realistically), and ‘F1 Racing’ is a much more accurate representation of motor racing than any GCM is of global climate. But the ability of a person to win a race as demonstrated by ‘F1 Racing’ is not an indication that the person could or would win the Monte Carlo Grande Prix if put in a real racing car. Similarly, an appearance of reality provided by a GCM cannot be taken as an indication of the GCM’s predictive ability in the absence of the GCM having any demonstrated forecasting skill.

Put bluntly, predictions of the future provided by existing climate models have the same degree of demonstrated reliability as has the casting of chicken bones for predicting the future.

And no two climate models are the same so they each give a different and probably wrong prediction of the future.

“AGW theory claims anthropogenic CO2 is increasing global temperature. Because of the physical process invoked by the theory the warming would be predicted to be of greater magnitude at night, at high latitudes and confined to the lower troposphere with cooling of the stratosphere.
The measured warming, and its pattern of distribution, the measured changes in the magnitude and spectra of the TOA emissions and the surface back radiation and the measured changes in CO2 levels fingerprinted by the isotope ration to human sources are the ‘validating datum’ in your terminology.”

Well, it all depends on what you mean by AGW theory. Unfortunately the term is so nebulous that it means different things to different people. However, if by ‘AGW Theory’ you mean the theory that human produced CO2 has a warming effect on the Earth due to the radiative properties that the molecules have, then you may be correct.

If by AGW theory, on the other hand, you are including all the attendant feedbacks assumed by the IPCC, leading to much higher levels of warming than the radiative properties of CO2 would allow, then your statement is incorrect. Lindzen has shown that feedbacks are net negative and the only predictions made – high rates of tropical midtroposphere warming due to water vapour feedback – have been falsified.

If AGW is a theory, it has set a new low in what a theory is supposed to be.